Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam on 19 March, 2026

                                                                  Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010053772026




                                                           2026:GAU-AS:4023

                        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.# 2/8

            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
                    HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

Date : 19-03-2026

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 Pator 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. Case Diary received. Perused the same.

4. 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 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 Page No.# 3/8

and accordingly, the petitioners got arrested and the case has been registered under Section 152/175/196/197/353/61(2) of BNS.

5. 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.

6. 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 defamation. But, with such contents the case cannot attract Section 152/196/197 of BNS as registered against the present petitioners.

7. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel also produced two leaflets before the Page No.# 4/8

Court at the time of hearing.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. Citing the above referred two judgments Mr. Bora, learned Senor Counsel 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.

Page No.# 5/8

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, the learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that the investigation is still under process and it is a fact that good quantity of leaflets were seized during investigation by police and prima facie from those leaflets it reveal that there is a prima facie case against the sections under which the case has been registered.

14. Mr. Bora the learned Senior Advocate has submitted in this regard that 48 BNSS notices which were issued to the present petitioners are not the person who has been authorized or nominated by the accused/persons to receive notice u/s 48 BNSS for their behalf. Neither he is the family member or relative of the accused/petitioners nor he was authorized by them.

15. In that context Mr. Borthakur, the learned Addl. PP submitted that though it is stated that he is not an authorized person but, the present bail application Page No.# 6/8

has been filed by the said person Abdul Motin who received the notice u/s 48 BNSS on behalf of all the petitioners.

16. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary along with the annexures filed with the petition.

17. It is a case of the petitioner that prima facie there is no case established against them u/s 152 BNS, corresponding to Section 124A IPC as well as there is no ingredient to establish a case u/s 196/197 of BNS as registered against them. It is the submission of Mr. Bora that at best it may be a case of defamation. On perusal of the Case Diary it is seen that two leaflets which were produced by the petitioners on 16.03.2026 while passing the earlier order, these are the only two leaflets which were seized by police during the investigation. From the contents of those two leaflets and templates it is seen that there are some remark against some particular person wherein it is the contention of one of the leaflets that the public had filed a charge-sheet against the said particular person. But, admittedly from the said leaflets and templates, it cannot be considered that there are any remark endangering the sovereignty of India to attract the case u/s 152 BNS, so far the investigation is concerned till date. However, it is a fact that those templates and leaflets were published before the forthcoming State Assembly Election, which may have an affect in the election process. But, there is no such grounds to be considered as endangering to the State/Nation. Further from the perusal of the Case Diary also it is seen that till date there is no reported incident of disorder and distrust situation amongst the public for publishing those leaflets/templates. In the same time it is also seen that there was an attempt to circulate those leaflets/templates amongst the general public at large before the forthcoming election. But, as all the materials Page No.# 7/8

have already been seized by police during investigation, till then there is no such report regarding the circulation of those leaflets and templates. It is further seen that the case is still under investigation and during investigation some other materials may come out which may be helpful in establishing the case against the present petitioners. But, till date considering the investigation so far done by the Investigating Officer, materials available in the Case Diary, vis-à-vis the contents of seized articles i.e. the leaflets and templates, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation in connection with the present case may not be required for the purpose of investigation. However, during further investigation, the interrogation of the present petitioner may be required, in which event the petitioners will extend their cooperation in further investigation of this case. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitioners are entitled for privilege of bail at this stage.

18. Accordingly, the accused/petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M). The accused/petitioners, namely (i) Rakibul Hoque Khan, (ii) Akshay Kr. Bordoloi, (iii) Joynal Abedin and (iv) Pranjit Pator, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and Page No.# 8/8