Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 8834
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Pranjal Das, J
Hafijur Rahman – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Bail Appln./4019/2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
BNS, 2023: S.281, S.324(4), S.132, S.109, S.3(5)
Headnote
(B) Right to Safety - Public Security - Every citizen, regardless of their profession or status, including members of the judicial fraternity, is entitled to public safety and security. (Para 8)
(C) Judicial Security - Protection of Officers - Highlights the necessity for reviewing security arrangements for Judicial Officers of all grades, particularly those handling criminal matters, to mitigate risks from vested interests. (Para 15)
Issues: Whether the accused petitioners are entitled to bail despite the victim being a Judicial Magistrate.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A Chaudhury, P K Das, N Mahajan, B.H. Tapadar
For the Respondents: PP, Assam
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the arrest of petitioners and allegations of assault on a judicial magistrate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. prosecution's argument against bail based on the victim's status and incriminating evidence. (Para 6) |
| 3. balance between the right to public safety and the legal criteria for granting bail based on detention and investigation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. grant of bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure trial participation and public order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. judicial observation on the systemic need for personal security officers for judicial officers. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. formal disposal of the bail application. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER
Date : 18.12.2025
Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023 , the accused petitioners namely, Hafijur Rahman and Atowar Rahman, have prayed for bail in connection with Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 376/2025 under Section 281 /324(4)/132/109/3(5) of BNS, 2023 .
3. The accused were arrested on 02.12.2025 and after being in police remand for two days and examined therein, they were remanded to judicial custody where they are at present.
4. The informant is a learned Judicial Magistrate -cum- Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilasipara, Dhubri, who lodged the FIR with the allegation that on 01.12.2025 at 10 a.m. after he crossed Beltola Chariali, on the way to office, while driving his car at moderate speed, there was two vehicles coming from the opposite direction and suddenly the driver of an alto vehicle bearing Regd. No. AS-16-H-2768 parked on the left side, without giving any signal turned right and hit on the left of the car and immediately informant stopped the car and asked them whether they are ok. The informant found three persons inside the said case. However, suddenly, they started abusing him with obscene language and demanded him to come out of the car and threatened him. Finding the situation unsafe, he moved out from the place and rushed to his office and these two persons started chasing him and tried to hit him with wooden stick and also told him that he knew that he was a judge and still tried to hit him and also abused him. It is also alleged that, by that time, the office peon and chowkidar and another home guard were present and they rescued the informant. It is alleged that they also hit the back side of his car with lathi.
5. The case diary has been received.
6. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that informant-cum-victim in his statement has supported the allegation and has implicated the petitioners. It is submitted that some other witness have implicated them. The statements of the accused persons themselves also available. Though not admissible but in their statements, they admitted and that, they did not know that the informant was a Judicial Magistrate. The learned Addl.P.P. submits that it is a disturbing case of offence attempted on a judicial magistrate and in view of the incriminating materials, bail petition may be rejected.
7. I have seen the progress of investigation.
8. Needlessly to say, that not just victim or the informant belonging to the Judicial fraternity, every citizen is entitled to his right to public safety and security, irrespective of what he is in life. That right accrues as the member of the society and as a citizen and the right of public safety and security accrues even to foreigners visiting our county.
9. It is never the case that even if victim of a criminal case is a member of Judicial fraternity, the courts while adjudicating the matter, will not be able to be dispassionately objective.
10. Though, the alleged conduct of the petitioners is despicable and condemnable – nevertheless, considering the progress of investigation and length of detention so far, I am of the considered view that they
