Dismissed

Hafizur Rahman v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC27 Nov 2019Bail Appln./3260/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications rejected against four petitioners detained for extremist activities involving arms possession under Sections 121 IPC, Arms Act, and UA (P) Act. Court found investigation extended beyond 90 days was justified to prevent absconding in serious terrorism-related case.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications for petitioner accused Rafiq, Safequl Islam, Danesh Ali, and Hafizur Rahman were rejected.

Hafizur Rahman Vs the State of Assam — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010247362019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln. 3119/2019

¶5

1:MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN

¶6

S/O LATE DELOWAR HUSSAIN, R/O VILL-CHATALA, P.S.-SARTHEBARI, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781312

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : J U AHMED

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

Linked Case : Bail Appln. 2996/2019

¶12

1:M.H. SAFIKUL ISLAM AND ANR. S/O. ABDUS SAMAD R/O. VILL. JANIA P.S. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM.

¶13

2: DANESH ALI S/O. KISMAT ALI VILL. CHATIA P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. VERSUS

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM

Page No.# 2/4

REP. BY PP ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP ASSAM

¶18

Linked Case : Bail Appln. 3260/2019

¶19

1:HAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O RAHIZ UDDIN VILL-KARAGARI GOAN P.S.-BARPETA DIST-BARPETA ASSAM

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP ASSAM

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 27-11-2019

¶26

By these applications under Section 439 CrPC, petitioners, namely, Mustafizur Rahman, M H Safikul Islam, Danesh Ali and Hafizur Rahman, who are in custody since 30.07.2019 and 04.08.2019 respectively, have prayed for releasing them on regular bail in connection with Barpeta PS Case No. 1557/2019, under Sections 121/121 (A)/122 IPC, read with Section 25 (1-A) of the Arms Act and Sections 10/13 of the UA (P) Act.

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the Case Diary, produced before this Court today.

¶29

In so far as the allegation is concerned, on 30.07.2019, on a specific information, the Police officials from Barpeta Police Station made a raid in the house of Hafizur Rahman and during search, they recovered one fire arm and four numbers of live ammunitions, which was kept concealed in a locked trunk in his bed room. The aforesaid arms and ammunitions were seized and the accused was also arrested. It was found that the said accused petitioner is an active trained member of Jamatul Mujahidin of Bangladesh (JMB) and he had kept those articles for committing unlawful activities in the name of such JMB, which is a banned extremist organization. On the basis of the above, the FIR was filed to this effect and the investigation proceeded. Subsequently, the other accused persons were also arrested in the present case finding ample materials that they are also involved while carrying out the unlawful activities of the said extremist organization.

¶30

Now, the bail petitions have been preferred for and on behalf of the accused persons on the ground of length of detention and with the contention that they were not involved in the offence as alleged. Another contention that has been raised that despite of the fact that all the accused persons are in detention for more than 90 days, but the learned trial Court has extended the period of detention by its order dated 29.10.2019, which is bad in law, as it was allowed beyond the period of 90 days and the learned Magistrate is not empowered to grant such extension.

¶31

I have gone through the documents annexed and also gone through the Case Diary produced.

¶32

So far as the accused petitioner, Hafizur Rahman, as indicated above, is concerned, several arms and ammunitions were recovered from him and the investigation reveals that he has carried out such extremist activities being a trained member of the JMB. As regard the other accused petitioners are concerned, although no recovery of arms and ammunitions is made, investigation discloses that they are actively involved with Hafizur Rahman to carry out the activities of the said organization. From the nature of evidence itself, it depicts the seriousness of the matter as it amounts to threat to the security of the State also.

¶33

Reverting to the question of extension of time for investigation, it has been contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that such prayer has been made within time and while granting such extension of time, the period of police remand has to be excluded, whereas, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such extension has not been granted within the time particularly, in case of Hafizur Rahman, who was arrested on 30.07.2019, whereas, the other accused persons were

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

arrested on 04.08.2019. Perusal of the record reveals that the accused Hafizur was arrested by the Police on 30.07.2019 and on the very day, he was forwarded to police remand for 5 (five) days by the learned SDJM (M), Bajali, Pathshala, so his detention can be counted from the date of production after the remand. On the other hand, the other accused persons were arrested on 04.08.2019, so 90 days will be completed as on 01.11.2019 and prayer for extension was made and allowed on 29.10.2019.

¶36

From the order of the learned Court dated 29.10.2019, it also reflects that while granting the prayer of the IO for extension of time, the Court has noted that if the custody period of the accused persons aforesaid is not extended, then there is every likelihood that the accused persons will assist or provide help to abscond the other co-accused, who are yet to be apprehended and matter relates to extremist group of people. Persuaded by the entire materials on record, the Court has extended another 90 days to complete the investigation. Obviously, such an order of extension has not been challenged by the accused petitioners, then the same cannot be the subject matter in this bail application. We are conscious that the matter relates to an investigation of an offence which relates to unlawful activities carried out by the members of the JMB, a banned extremist organization. Several incriminating materials have emerged during the course of investigation sufficiently implicating the present accused petitioners.

¶37

It is noted that, in the interest of investigation, extension of period beyond 90 days has been granted by the learned Court and release of accused persons may hamper the progress of the case.

¶38

Taking note of all above and the materials in the Case Diary, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused petitioners aforesaid. Accordingly, the bail applications stand rejected.

¶39

Return the Case Diary.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Hafizur Rahman v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafizur Rahman v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marjina Begum and Anr. Vs State of Assam

Aftar Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rabiul Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

MD Dildhar Hussain @ Dilder @Dildar @ Dilwar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

MD Alfred Hussain @ Abusarif and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Atinur Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam