Firoz Khan vs The State Of Assam

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and K.K. Das, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent.

This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the petitioner namely Firoz Khan, in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026 registered under Section 316(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 340(2)/ 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The allegation made in the FIR is that one Nazmul Ansari on 27.07.2026 lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Tezpur Police Station suspecting misuse of his biometric, fingerprint and iris scan by one Mr. Jewel Ahmed. The informant enrolled himself in a Skill India Related program of the Government of India. For the purpose of enrolment, the said Mr. Jewel Ahmed took his documents, biometric details, finger print and iris scans. Initially, the informant was told that the biometric details would be required for the purpose of registration and Aadhar/KYC verification and after completion of verification the informant would be imparting training followed by payment of stipend.

However, the informant became skeptical from the factum of storing of his biometric details and use of the same for the purpose of attendance. Hence, fearing misuse of his biometric details, he lodged the FIR dated 27.07.2026. Accordingly, the police registered the Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026 under sections 316(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 340(2) /61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only a worker in the franchise run by one Ali Akbar and furthermore, no arrest memo was served upon the petitioner and the notice under section 48 BNSS along with the grounds of arrest was also not furnished as it is mentioned in the said notice that the same has been sent by W.T. message and there is no proof of such service of the notice on the addressee.

Considering the length of detention, it is submitted that the prayer for bail may be allowed.

Learned Additional PP submits that the petitioner had the technical knowledge of the process by which fake attendance could be generated.

This Court could not find any arrest memo in the case diary and the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to non-service of the notice under section 48 BNSS also appears to have substance.

Furthermore, it appears that the petitioner was thoroughly interrogated while in police custody and moreover, he has spent about 50 days in custody and the investigation of the case, as would appear from the CD, would take a long time for completion.

Having regard to the aforesaid, the prayer for bail is allowed.

Accordingly, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned jurisdictional Magistrate/Court subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the IO as and when required or summoned.

Bail application stands disposed of.