The Gauhati High Court granted bail to a man named Rashid Sikdar who had been arrested for allegedly posting a threatening message on Facebook directed at Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The alleged post included statements expressing support for Pakistan and an open challenge to kill the Chief Minister if anything happened to the neighboring country. The Court, while noting the seriousness of the allegations, observed that the petitioner had already been in custody for 57 days and concluded that his further detention was not necessary for the purposes of the ongoing investigation.
The bench, presided over by Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, took into account that the petitioner had been in jail since his arrest and that the investigating authorities had not presented compelling reasons justifying the need for continued custody. The Court noted that even though the Public Prosecutor had made formal requests to the authorities, the case diary had not been produced, raising questions about the urgency and seriousness of the ongoing investigation. The Court, therefore, held that the refusal or delay in producing the case diary could not be grounds for denying bail to the petitioner when there was no clear justification for his continued incarceration.
The matter stemmed from an FIR filed on May 21, 2025, in which it was alleged that the petitioner made provocative and threatening statements through a Facebook post. The post reportedly read “I love you Pakistan” followed by an “open challenge” to kill the Chief Minister. The message also stated that if anything were to happen to Pakistan, the accused would shoot the Chief Minister. These statements attracted public and legal attention, leading to the petitioner’s arrest under serious charges related to criminal intimidation, threat to public figures, and disturbing public order.
Despite the gravity of the language used in the Facebook post, the Court found that the basic principles of bail jurisprudence still applied. The bench reiterated that bail should not be used as a form of punishment, especially when the accused had spent a significant period in pretrial custody and the investigation did not seem to require further detention. The Court underscored that the absence of the case diary and the lack of strong justification for continued custody tilted the balance in favor of granting bail.
As part of the bail conditions, the Court directed that the petitioner must not attempt to influence or intimidate any witnesses involved in the investigation. He was also ordered to fully cooperate with the investigative process and refrain from any actions that could interfere with the proceedings. The Court made it clear that failure to comply with these conditions could result in the cancellation of bail.
This judgment highlights the careful balance courts are required to maintain between ensuring public safety and upholding individual liberties. The Court’s decision was rooted in legal principles that emphasize fairness, proportionality, and the importance of pretrial rights. While acknowledging the serious tone of the petitioner’s online statements, the Court concluded that continued detention, in the absence of concrete evidence or investigative need, would not be justified.
Through this decision, the Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that the rule of law must govern decisions even in emotionally charged and politically sensitive cases. It emphasized that the power to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, guided by the facts of each case, the conduct of the accused, and the obligations of the investigating agencies to pursue cases diligently and transparently. The case serves as an important reminder that allegations alone cannot determine the outcome of bail applications unless substantiated by strong prosecutorial and procedural conduct.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.