Mohbub Ahmed @ Mehbub Ahmed vs State Of Assam

The Court proceedings have been conducted through remote video conferencing mode due to the prevailing situation in the State due to Covid-19

pandemic.

Heard Mr. K. Munir, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Mr. T.K. Misra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State

of Assam.

By this application under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused-petitioner viz. Mohbub Ahmed @ Mehbub Ahmed has

prayed for his release on bail in connection with Dispur Police Station Case No. 1333/2021, registered under Sections 120B/121, Indian Penal Code

read with Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Dispur Police Station on 09.04.2021. In the FIR, it has

inter alia been stated that a secret information was received on 08.04.2021 and the same was registered as Dispur Police Station General Diary Entry

no. 403 dated 08.04.2021. Pursuant thereto, a joint operation was carried out with Crime Branch, Guwahati at Suma Guest House situated at Last

Gate area of Guwahati city. On being so searched, the accused-petitioner and 6 (six) others were apprehended. After being interrogated, the present

accused-petitioner led the police team to Reja Lodge situated also at Last Gate area. In room no. 204 of Reja Lodge which was booked in the name

of the accused-petitioner, the team of police personnel found 1 kg of mercury which was kept concealed and the same was seized. It has been

mentioned that from the interrogation of the seven accused persons, it is learnt that the said mercury was to be used for preparation of explosive

substances, etc. and they had gathered in Suma Guest House to hold a meeting with the conspiracy to sell the same to some extremist groups which

could then be used by the extremist group for terror activities.

The present application has been preferred by the accused-petitioner for the third occasion after rejection of his first application, BA No. 1071/2021

by order dated 19.05.2021 and withdrawal of the second application, BA No. 1188/2021 on 07.06.2021. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner

has referred to the order dated 19.05.2021 (supra) to indicate that when the earlier application was rejected, report of the Forensic Science

Laboratory (FSL) was not received and placed before this Court. He has placed an order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M) in bail application, BA No. 292/2021 which was preferred by two other persons arrested in connection with the

said case viz. Sri Naorem Anand Meitei and Sri Tangam Bimal Singh, along with the present accused-petitioner. When the said bail application, BA

No. 292/2021 was considered, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing in that case had placed the case diary of the case including the FSL

report which reported that the seized items were not explosive in nature but merely toxic.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also referred to the death certificate (Annexure-8) to submit that the mother of the accused-

petitioner has expired on 16.06.2021 in the meantime. The accused-petitioner being the only son, has to complete the rituals for the death of his

mother. Apart from the above submissions, he has submitted that the accused-petitioner is a member of Manipur Police.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the fact that in the order dated 22.06.2021 (supra), it has been recorded that the FSL report

did not show that the seized items were explosive in nature. He has not denied that two of the co-accused persons have also been released on bail in

the meantime.

It clearly transpires from the order dated 22.06.2021 (supra) that the FSL report has shown that the seized items were not explosive in nature but

only toxic in nature. After arrest, the accused-petitioner was remanded to custody on 10.04.2021 and thus, he is in custody for about more than 77

days. The two co-accused persons have already been released on bail. The accused-petitioner is a member of Manipur Police. On 16.06.2021, the

mother of the accused-petitioner has expired. The order dated 22.06.2021 had further observed that the investigation of the case had progress

substantially.

In the above fact situation obtained in the case, this Court is of the view that for consideration of the present bail application requisition of the case

diary is not necessary.

Considering the facts that the accused-petitioner is in custody for 77 days since 10.04.2021; that the investigation of the case has progressed

substantially; that the seized substances are not explosive in nature as per the FSL report; that he is a member of Manipur Police and that the mother

of the accused-petitioner has expired in the meantime, I am of the considered view that further custodial detention of the accused-petitioner for the

purpose of further investigation appears not necessary and if the accused-petitioner is released on bail, at this stage of investigation, further

investigation of the case is not likely to be prejudicially affected, provided he continues to extend his assistance and cooperation in the further

investigation of the case.

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner is allowed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), subject to the following conditions :-

[1] The accused petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when is presence is called for by

the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case;

[2] The accused petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

[3] The accused petitioner shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be

collected by the police;

[4] The accused petitioner shall maintain law and order and he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or of the

commission of which he is suspected; and

[5] The accused petitioner shall regularly remain present during the trial and cooperate the Court to complete the trial for the above offences, if charge

sheeted in the case.

This application stands disposed of in the afore-mentioned terms.