Reetam Singh vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 4521 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Reetam Singh vs The State Of Assam on 27 March, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010063782025




                                                                  undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Bail Appln./919/2025

            REETAM SINGH
            SON OF SRI BALAWANT SINGH
            RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 3B,PROKASH ENCLAVE, HARBALA ROAD,
            ULUBARI, P.S.PALTANBAZAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M),
            GUWAHATI-781007, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MS A DEVI,MS. H BORAH,MR. H.
BURAGOHAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
                                                                     Page No.# 2/12

                        BEFORE
         HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
                                    ORDER

Date : 27.03.2025

Heard Mr. K N Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an application 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 91/2025, under Section 356(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 67 of IT Act, 2000 read with Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(1) (u)/3(1)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, Assam.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that on 15.03.2025, at around 8.00 a.m., the police personnel made a search for the petitioner in his house and on enquiry made by the mother of the petitioner, they showed a document wherein the date was not mentioned. Accordingly, the mother of the petitioner quickly took a photograph of the said document, which apparently showed that it was an undated F.I.R. addressed to the Officer-In- Charge, North Lakhimpur Sadar Police Station and on the basis of which, the police were searching for the petitioner. The copy of the said undated F.I.R. is also annexed with the petition. Further he submitted that though at the relevant point of time there was no mention of any date in the F.I.R., but subsequently Page No.# 3/12

the date is inserted in the said F.I.R. and it appears that the informant had lodged the F.I.R. on 15.03.2025, at about 2.00 hours, i.e. the early hours in the morning, and the said F.I.R. entered as G.D. Entry No. 629 at 2.15 hours. However, the F.I.R. also indicates that the same has been dated as "14.03.2025"

by the informant and there is no explanation as to why there is a discrepancy in the date of lodging of the F.I.R. and the date of receiving of the F.I.R. at police station.

4. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that from the plain reading of the F.I.R. itself, it is seen that at best it may be case under Sections 499/500 of IPC, which cannot be registered on the basis of an F.I.R. According to the F.I.R., the present accused/petitioner made some false/defamatory and humiliating statements against the late father of the informant and her husband (MLA) on a public platform, i.e. "Twitter/X" on 13.03.2025, at 9.56 a.m., by posting derogatory and unacceptable remarks. It is alleged that in the said tweet, the petitioner stated that the husband of the informant is a rapist which according to her has no legal basis or judicial determination and such malicious and baseless allegation has severely defamed her late father's reputation and family's honour. It is further alleged that with such defamatory allegation, the petitioner indirectly suggested that her late father knowingly choose a rapist as a "Ghar Jamai" thereby implying that her family was responsible for helping so called rapist to become an MLA. It is also alleged that calling her husband as an "Obedient Ghar Jamai" had insinuated the caste based and gender based stereotype that degrades her dignity as a women belonging to Scheduled Caste community. But, from the said tweet, which is alleged to have been posted by the present accused/petitioner, it is seen the petitioner has not made any defamatory statement against the late father of the informant who belonged to Page No.# 4/12

a Scheduled Caste community, rather from the tweet it is seen that her late father was stated to be a reputed person in Lakhimpur. More so, there are no elements of any caste based or gender based remarks as alleged in the F.I.R. and there is not even an iota of whisper in the said remarks insulting the informant or her late father in any forum or in any manner maligning their reputations. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if it is considered that the said tweet is a defamatory, derogatory or unacceptable one, in that case also it may be at best a case under Sections 499/500 IPC which cannot be registered on the basis of an F.I.R.

5. In that context, Mr. Choudhury also relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221, and emphasized on paragraph No. 207 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

"207. Another aspect required to be addressed pertains to issue of summons. Section 199 CrPC envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of criminal defamation neither any FIR can be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) CrPC. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. In a way, it is immense at the time of issue of process. Issue of process, as has been held in Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly, Dy. Superintendent and another190, is a matter of judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. In Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha191 it has been held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others192 a two-Judge Bench Page No.# 5/12

has held that (1972) 1 SCC 450 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 499 summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course."

6. In regards to the remark of "rapist" allegedly made by the petitioner in the "Twitter/X" on 13.03.2025 against the husband of the informant, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that in the Affidavit filed before the authority concerned at the time of filing of the Nomination Paper for contesting Assembly Election, the husband of the informant- Shri Manab Deka himself admitted regarding the pendency of the case against him including the case under Section 376 IPC.

7. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that from the plain reading of the said tweet alleged to have been posted by the present petitioner, it is seen that the same does not attract a case under the provision of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) as there is no defamatory or derogatory statement against any community. Rather, in the said tweet, the father of the informant was stated to be a respectable person who was a Tax Commissioner and was respected in the Lakhimpur District. Thus, he submitted that there is no ingredients to fulfill or attract Sections (1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(u)/3(1)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). Further he submitted that Section 67 of I.T. Act, which is also incorporated in the F.I.R., is also not applicable in the present case as the essential ingredients prescribed under the said proviso is clearly missing in the present case.

8. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur while dismissing the prayer for 7 (seven) days police remand Page No.# 6/12

for the present petitioner had observed that the prayer made by the Investigating Officer on the grounds relied upon is found to be unsatisfactory and it was the opinion of the Court that the interrogation of the accused can be conducted in the jail hajot for the purpose of further investigation of the case. It was further observed that the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to interrogate the accused/ petitioner in the jail premises of District Jail, North Lakhimpur. But, even after the said rejection order of the police remand, the Investigating Officer never made any prayer for interrogation of the present petitioner inside the jail premises, though the petitioner is still under the judicial custody.

9. He further submitted that after rejection of the prayer for bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur, the petitioner also moved another bail application before the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur wherein it was submitted by the prosecution that the accused/petitioner is not co-operating with the investigating authority by not providing the login ID and Password of his mobile phone and "X" Account, i.e. "Twitter" and in the same time, further 5 (days) police remand was also sought for. However, the learned Special Judge, hearing the learned public prosecutor and on perusal of the materials, refused the prayer for police remand and it was directed to the Investigating Officer that he is at liberty to gather the login ID and Password of the mobile of the accused/ petitioner during his judicial custody by following due process of law. Thus, both the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Special Judge had rejected the prayer for police remand in spite of the allegation that the accused is not co-operating the Investigating Officer in the investigation of this case.

Page No.# 7/12

10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the police authorities very arbitrarily and illegally exercising their power had arrested the present petitioner without even intimating his family members the reasons/ grounds of his arrest and almost after 5 (five) hours of his arrest, they furnished the Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS to the petitioner as well as to his family members. He further submitted that there is no proper compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS, though some particulars of grounds of arrest are being brought in the Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS, but is seen that in the Notice under Section 47, the date and time of arrest as well as the place of arrest are not given which is in clear violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.

11. Further Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, raised a very serious issue in regards to issuance of Notice under Section 47 of BNSS and it is submitted that the Notice under Section 47 BNSS has been issued by the Officer-In- Charge, Gossaigaon Police Station and not by the Officer-In-Charge or the Investigating Officer from the North Lakhimpur Police Station, which is very surprising and that creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the Notice was issued by the Investigating Officer from Lakhimpur Police Station under whose jurisdiction the F.I.R. has been registered. Further he submitted that the Notice was issued after 5 hours of the arrest of the present petitioner, which is also illegal. Thus, he submitted that for non-compliance of the provision of Sections 47 & 48 BNSS may also be the ground for bail for the present petitioner.

Page No.# 8/12

12. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that though the login credentials of the mobile phone and Twitter Account of the petitioner was sought for by the Investigating Officer, but in exercise of the fundamental right against the self incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India the petitioner has not provided the login ID of his mobile phone and Twitter Account and such refusal cannot be a basis for denial of bail as affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanket Bhadresh Modi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Bail Appln. No. 3754/2023, decided on 18.12.2023) and subsequently ruling reported by SCC Online on January 6, 2024, wherein it is established that the accused cannot be coerced to disclose digital access credentials during an ongoing investigation or trial, and such refusal does not justify continued detention and non-disclosure does not equate to non- cooperation warranting denial of bail. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is a fit case wherein the accused/petitioner can be granted with the privilege of bail and he being the permanent resident of his addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding, rather he will extend his co-operation in further investigation of this case.

13. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the present petitioner is a habitual offender and 2 (two) cases are already pending against him, viz Dispur P.S. Case No. 1091/2024, wherein the charge- sheet has already been filed, and Panbazar P.S. Case No. 93/2024, wherein the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that in the Affidavit filed at the time of filing Nomination Paper by the husband of the informant, he does not identify himself as a rapist. Further he submitted that the Notices issued under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS clearly disclose the grounds of arrest and the facts of the case in brief and thus it cannot be held that there was non-

Page No.# 9/12

compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS. More so, from the Order passed by the learned Special Judge, it also reveals that the accused/petitioner is not co- operating in the investigation and he is not providing his login ID and Password of his "X" Account, i.e. "Twitter", which is required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, he submitted that to know about more details of the facts of the case, perusal of the Case Diary is required and accordingly he insisted on calling for the Case Diary before passing any order on bail.

14. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the materials available on record and the annexures filed along with the petition.

15. From the annexures filed along with the petition, it cannot be denied that the copy of the F.I.R., which was shown to the mother of the accused/petitioner, was undated and subsequently the date has been inserted in the F.I.R. which is registered accordingly. Further, it cannot be denied that there is a discrepancy at the time of registering the F.I.R. and receipt of the F.I.R. etc. The basic allegation brought against the present petitioner is that he made some defamatory and derogatory statement in the tweet which was posted by him through his "Twitter/X" account wherein the husband of the informant as well as her late father is also defamed and maligned in the society. It is further alleged that the present petitioner has falsely alleged that the husband of the informant is a rapist while there is no legal basis or judicial determination and the entire allegation is baseless which seriously defamed her husband as well as her late father's reputation and their family's honour. It is further alleged that the accused/petitioner has humiliated her and her late father by calling her husband as an "Obidient Ghar Jamai" thereby insulted the caste and gender based Page No.# 10/12

stereotype that degrades her dignity as a women belonging to a Scheduled Caste community.

16. The said tweet which is alleged to have been posted by the present petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Manob Deka is a r@pist. That Basistha Police Station case is known to all.

He is a MLA only because his father-in-law was a Tax Commissioner who is respected in Lakhimpur.

Rest; not even a stray dog would vote for him based on his capabilities of being an obedient Ghar Jamai."

17. Thus, from the plain reading of the tweet, which is alleged to have been posted by the present petitioner, it is seen that there are some defamatory or derogatory remarks against the husband of the informant, but it cannot be said to be a defamatory or derogatory statement to degrade the dignity of the informant who belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Rather it is stated in the said tweet that her father was a respected person in the Lakhimpur District. Though during investigation some more details may come out, but from the bare reading of the tweet in question, it seems that it does not attract Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(1)(u)/3(1)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). However, as stated above, it cannot be denied that there are some defamatory statements posted in the tweet which may defame the dignity of the husband of the informant or maligned her image in the society and at best there may be a case under Sections 499/500 IPC and it is a settled law that an F.I.R. cannot be registered under the said Sections of law.

18. Coming to the compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS, it is seen that the Page No.# 11/12

brief facts or grounds of the arrest are being brought in the Notices and thus it is seen that there are partial compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS. But, in the same time, it is seen that the date, time and place of arrest etc. are not mentioned while issuing the Notice under Section 47 BNSS to the present petitioner. More surprisingly, it is seen that the Notice was issued by the Officer- In-Charge of Gossaigaon Police Station which is not even remotely connected in the present case and present case falls under the jurisdiction of North Lakhimpur Police Station. Thus, the genuineness of the Notice issued under Section 47 BNSS is also questionable.

19. Further, from the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that after the arrest of the present petitioner and also after rejection of the prayer for police remand by the learned Court below, the Investigating Officer never visited the jail premises for his interrogation, though it is claimed that he is not co-operating in the investigation of this case.

20. Going by the above discussions, it is seen that the petitioner has made out a strong ground for grant of bail but for abundant caution it is felt just and proper to go through the Case Diary. However, the ends of justice do not justify curtailing the liberty of the petitioner in the instant given fact of the case. Hence, the accused/petitioner, namely, Shri Reetam Singh, is given the liberty to go on interim bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, Assam, subject to the following conditions:

Page No.# 12/12

(i) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; and

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

21. List the matter on 28.04.2025 for production of the Case Diary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant