Bail Appln./2559/2025 CHAN MIAH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
In view of the above, bail petition stands rejected and disposed of
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 316(2), 318(4)
- BUDS Act, 2019 ss. 21(1), 21(2), 21(3)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 s. 66D
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the above, bail petition stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, R KHA,MR. S M RAHMAN,MS. P AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Date : 19.08.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Barua, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Page No.# 2/3 Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Chan Miah, has prayed for bail in connection with CID Cyber P.S. case No. 04/2025, registered under Section 316(2)/318(4) of BNS, 2023 r/w Section 21(1)/21(2)/21(3) of BUDS Act, 2019 and r/w Section 66D of I.T. Act, 2000.
The case arose out of an ejahar dated 06.06.2025 lodged by a retired police officer that he became a victim of fraudulent online activities, resulting in a substantial financial loss. The present accused was arrested during investigation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is stated to have been arrested on 10.07.2025 and first remand on 11.07.2025. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a carpenter and illiterate person and he was induced in the alleged activities and he does not have any role in the said offences.
Case diary has been received along with bail objection. On the basis of the same, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application and supporting the bail objection of the investigating officer – submits that the allegation apart from being serious, the investigation has also revealed adverse materials including the present petitioner. The investigation is in progress and at this stage, the prosecution opposes the grant of bail.
I have perused the bail objection placed before me along with case diary. I also perused the grounds of arrest specific to the present petitioner in terms of the settled law in this regard. In para Nos. 3 and 4 of the bail objection, the investigating officer has stated about the people being fraudulently cheated of public money by these kind of activities on an organized scale and that these Page No.# 3/3 offences are serious which cheats people and needs to be investigated thoroughly.
Considering the nature of allegations and the materials revealed, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage where the investigation is still in progress, bail should be refused to the present accused.
Operative part
In view of the above, bail petition stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, bail petition stands rejected and disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 316(2), 318(4); BUDS Act, 2019 — ss. 21(1), 21(2), 21(3); Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66D.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 19 Aug 2025. The bench was PRANJAL DAS.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.