Haidor Ali Alias MD Haidar Ali Vs State of Assam

Heard Mr. A. Paramanik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

namely, Haidor Ali @ Md. Haidar Ali, has prayed for bail in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 64/2026 under Section 140(1)/127(7)/308(5)/3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶16

The petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2026 in connection with this case which was registered based on an FIR dated 26.04.2026 lodged by one Munnaf Ali.

¶17

The brief facts of the case is that the accused person along with others has allegedly kidnapped the brother of the informant and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as ransom for his release through mobile No. 8134986718 and 9126140930 and police later, recovered the brother of the informant along with his maternal uncle from the clutches of the accused persons.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner denies involvement in any act of kidnapping for ransom. It is submitted that there were some monetary transactions between the informant side and the accused persons. The accused persons were supposed to get some money back from the informant side and in the backdrop of the same, the FIR has been lodged with exaggerated and concocted allegations.

¶19

The learned Addl.P.P. opposing the bail at this stage, submits that the investigation is continuing and not yet completed. It is submitted that the mobile phones from where the alleged threatening call came have been sent for forensic examination. It is submitted that from the materials revealed by the case diary, he has not found any aspect of monetary dispute between the parties. However, learned Addl.P.P. fairly submits that during the investigation, blank cheque signed by the informant/victim

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

were recovered from the accused persons.

¶22

I have perused the relevant portions of the case diary. The investigation has progressed, but not yet completed.

¶23

During the investigation, the statements of both the alleged victims were recorded, with one of them recorded before the learned Magistrate. 9. In such statements, the said victim has implicated the accused persons, especially the main accused, and described how he was subjected to kidnapping, and thereafter his family member was telephonically demanded money for his release. The other alleged victim in his statement before police has also revealed implications, and described the incident of kidnapping.

¶24

The statement of the main accused is also incriminating, but being a statement before police is not admissible; therefore not being considered. 11. Thus, from the perusal of the case diary, there is no manner of doubt that the investigation has implicated the accused persons, and revealed adverse materials against them. However, the petitioner is stated to be in under trial detention for more than 80 days now, since his arrest. Apart from this aspect of length of detention, there has been reasonably good progress in the investigation as well. The applicable statutory period is 90 days.

¶25

In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that the accused petitioner can be granted bail at this stage, and that doing so should not prejudice the investigation in any significant manner.

¶26

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Noonmati P.S. Case No. 64/2026 under Section 140(1)/127(7)/308(5)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, on furnishing bail bond of

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

Rs.50,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned learned court.

¶29