Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 16 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010053772026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./757/2026
RAKIBUL HOQUE KHAN AND 3 ORS
S/O MOTIBUR RAHMAN
R/O VILL- KHALIHAMARI, P.S. BHURAGAON, MORIGAON, DIST.
MORIGAON, ASSAM.
2: AKSHAY KR. BORDOLOI
S/O MILABOR BORDOLOI
R/O BATABORI
MORIGAON
P.S. MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
3: JOYNAL ABEDIN
S/O KASEM ALI
R/O HATIPARA
NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
P.S.NAGAON SADAR
ASSAM
4: PRANJIT PATOR
S/O PRAHLAD PATOR
R/O BATABARI
DEWAGURI MORIGAON
P.S. MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. R BARTHAKUR,MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. D
K BAIDYA,MR. D GAGAI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
16-03-2026
Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. K. Baidya,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 BNSS, praying for grant of
bail to the petitioners, namely, (i) Rakibul Hoque Khan, (ii) Akshay Kr.
Bordoloi, (iii) Joynal Abedin and (iv) Pranjit Patpr who were arrested in
connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 135/2026 registered under Sections
152/175/196/197/353/61(2) of BNS, 2023.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that from the contents
of the FIR itself, it is seen that these four petitioners got arrested in connection
with this case with the allegation that they have parked a truck, i.e., commercial
Page No.# 3/7
vehicle in a residential complex of a person. Coming to know about the same,
the police visited the place of occurrence and on enquiry it was found that the
vehicle was carrying some leaflets of a political party with provocative slogans
and accordingly, the petitioners got arrested and the case has been registered
under Section 152/175/196/197/353/61(2) of BNS.
4. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel basically emphasized on Section 152 BNS
which speaks about the acts endangering the Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of
India. But the leaflets which were allegedly recovered from the possession of
the petitioners does not contain any materials to attract Section 152 BNS, the
leaflets and pamphlets only reflects some remarks against a particular person
and it cannot be considered that the said leaflets etc., are endangering the
sovereignty of India. The person may be posted in a Constitutional post or
respective post, but he/she cannot be a designated as a State or Country to
attract Section 152 BNS. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
leaflets are already seized from the possession of the petitioners as alleged and
those pamphlets were not even circulated amongst the people. Further as per
information the contents of the said leaflets and pamphlets were already
circulated through internet one week prior to the lodging of the FIR.
5. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the case is also
registered under Sections 196/197 BNS and to attract Section 196 BNS also
there has to be any promoting remarks to create enmity between two different
groups on the ground of religion, race, place, language etc. Again to attract
Section 197 BNS also there has to be some class of persons or the members of
any religion language etc. But the leaflets which are alleged to have been seized
from the possession of the petitioners are only against a particular person
wherein some remarks were made and at best there may be a case of
Page No.# 4/7
defamation. But with such contents the case cannot attract Section 152/196/197
of BNS as registered against the present petitioners.
6. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel also produced two leaflets before the
Court at the time of hearing.
7. In that context, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel also relied on a decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of
Bihar reported in 1962 SCC OnLine 6 and basically emphasized on para 15
and 24 of the said judgment, wherein in para 15 of the said judgment it has
been served as follows:-
“15………………
The seditious conduct may be by words, by deed, or by writing. Five specific
heads of sedition may be enumerated according to the object of the accused.
This may be either
1. to excite disaffection against the King, Government, or Constitution, or
against Parliament or the administration of justice;
2. to promote, by unlawful means, any alteration in Church or State;
3. to incite a disturbance of the peace;
4. to raise discontent among the King’s subjects;
5. to excite class hatred.
It must be observed that criticism on political matters is not of itself seditious.
The test is the manner in which it is made. Candid and honest discussion is
permitted. The law only interferes when the discussion passes the bounds of
fair criticism. More especially will this be the case when the natural
consequence of the prisoner’s conduct is to promote public disorder.”
8. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel further relied on another decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of A.P.
reported in (1997) 7 SCC 431 and emphasized on para 6 of the said
judgment, wherein the Section 124A IPC corresponding to Section 152 BNS is
discussed and also relied on para 10 of the said judgment, wherein Section
153A IPC corresponding to Section 196 BNS has been discussed.
9. Citing the above referred two judgments Mr. Bora, learned Senor Counsel
Page No.# 5/7
submitted that in the present case, there is no case established under Section
152/196/197 of BNS, which the case has been registered apart from other
Sections.
10. Accordingly, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the case
diary may be called for, but in the meantime, the petitioners may be released on
interim bail with a directions to cooperate in the investigation of this case as and
when their cooperation will be required.
11. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP submitted in this regard that from the contents
of the FIR itself it is seen that during investigation and enquiry it has found that
the contents in the FIR is not in the nature of fair comment, ordinary political
criticism, or lawful democratic dissent, but are couched in a form designed to
sensationalise, inflame passions, provoke public unrest and disturb at
atmosphere immediately preceding the forthcoming Assam State Election
expected next month.
12. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP further submitted that during investigation it
also come to the notice that said posters contained imputations and assertions
which in their texts, tenure and presentation, are capable of creating enmity,
hatred ill-will distrust and public disorder particularly in a politically sensitive
period when emotions run high and even a single provocative publication can
trigger local tension, confrontation breach of peace etc.
13. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP further submitted that at present it is not
possible on his part to submit much on the merit of the case except the FIR as
submitted by the petitioners side there is no other documents or materials
before him at this stage.
14. He further submitted two leaflets have been produced by the petitioners
Page No.# 6/7
but he is not in a position as to whether any other materials were collected from
the possession of the petitioners which will attract the Sections under which the
case has been registered.
15. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP accordingly submitted that considering the
nature of offence and the statement made in the FIR and the forwarding report
etc., he submitted that without perusal of the case diary, there may not be any
order passed in that regard as perusal of the case diary is very essential at this
stage. Accordingly, he insisted to call for the case diary.
16. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have
also considered the FIR and the other annexures filed along with the petition
including the two leaflets placed before the Court during the deliberation of the
matter.
17. It is the case of the petitioners that prima facie there is no case
established against them under Sections 152 BNS corresponding to Section
124A IPC as well as there is no other ingredients also to establish a case under
Sections 196/197 of BNS.
18. But considering the submissions made by the learned APP, this Court is of
the opinion that without perusal of the case diary, the prosecution as well as the
Court may not be in a position to arrive at any decision of granting interim bail
to the petitioners at this stage and accordingly, I find it justified to call for the
case diary within a shortage possible time so that the matter may be heard and
finally disposed of after perusal of the case diary.
19. In view of above, call for the case diary.
20. List this matter on 19.03.2026 for production of the updated case diary
directing the I.O. to furnish the case diary positively on or before the next date
Page No.# 7/7
and the learned Addl. PP will also take all endeavour to call for the case diary,
which is to be reach on or before the next date of listing.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
