MD Rahmat Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶15

2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioners namely, Md. Rahmat Khan and Foyaj Ahmed @ Foyaj Ahamed , have prayed for bail in connection with Makum P.S. Case No. 50/2025 under Setion 105/3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶16

3. They were arrested on 10-11-2025 and stated to have completed about 87 days in pre-trial detention.

¶17

4. The case arose out of an FIR dated 06-11-2025. It appears that the victim/deceased Tinku Tiwari was arrayed as an accused in Makum P.S. Case No. 48/2025 with the allegation of misbehaving with a schoolgirl whom he was carrying in his e-rickshaw to the school. It is alleged in the present FIR that on 27-10-2025 his neighbour Meraj Ahmed deceitfully engaged the informant's son, who was the victim, for driving his e-rickshaw and later, on that day, some people brutally assaulted him on different parts of the body and while being in judicial custody in connection with that other case, his condition became serious and he died in AMCH, Dibrugarh. She has further alleged that on 27-10-2025 when her son was caught hold of by the public, someone took video and circulated it on social media from where it

¶18

Page No.# 3/4

¶19

came to be seen that a group of persons had surrounded her son and tied up his hands and assaulted him. She has also named one person named Ajit Ghosh who had participated in the same assault and tied up her deceased son.

¶20

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a subsequent bail petition and earlier petition was rejected on 18.12.2025 in B.A No.3949/2025.

¶21

6. Perused the case diary.

¶22

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation has revealing incriminating materials; however the investigation has progressed though final opinion regarding the date has not yet been received.

¶23

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that, despite the length of detention, considering the materials, bail may not be considered at this stage.

¶24

9. The PM report is available.

¶25

10. It indicates that injuries were noticed on the dead body in from of abrasions, contusions etc including on the fronto-temporoparietal region. Haemorrhage was also noticed.

¶26

11. Despite the adverse materials, considering the length of detention and the progress of investigation, perhaps the accused persons can be granted bail at this stage in this subsequent bail petition.

¶27

12. Accordingly, the above-named accused persons is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only each with one

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

surety each of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court with following conditions:

¶30

(i) That the accused persons shall be available for the remaining investigation;

¶31

(ii) That the accused persons shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer;

¶32

(iii) That the accused persons shall not commit any offence while on bail;

¶33

(iv) That the accused persons shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence;

¶34

(v) That the accused persons shall not in any manner harm, intimidate or harass the informant and their family members.

¶35

13. Return back the case diary.

¶36

14. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail.

¶37

15. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of .