Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./3273/2026 of ALMINA AKHTAR ALIAS ALMINA AKTARA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 11 October 2026
GAHC010227732026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3273/2026 ALMINA AKHTAR ALIAS ALMINA AKTARA W/O TAZNUR HOQUE,R/O. VILL- HARDEMARA,P.O AND P.S- CHAPAR,DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010227732026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3273/2026
ALMINA AKHTAR ALIAS ALMINA AKTARA
W/O TAZNUR HOQUE,R/O. VILL- HARDEMARA,P.O AND P.S- CHAPAR,DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P OF ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P RAHMAN, MR S ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 12.10.2026
Heard Mr. P. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 98/2026, registered under Sections 140, 127(2), 143, 3(5) BNS, 2023.
3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested on 16.09.2026 was lodged by the police personnel of Jogighopa Police Station, stating inter alia that, during an enquiry about a missing person, a decision was made to lodge an FIR against unknown miscreants. It was also stated by the police personnel that on information it was detected that the person did not go missing on his own but some unknown persons are involved in kidnapping and in confining him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation the petitioner was arrested only on the allegation that the call data records were examined of other accused persons and it was found that the petitioner had contacted one of the accused people, who is her husband.
5. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned APP for the State, on the other hand however submits that, the Case Diary of the instant case be perused to see whether the missing person is dead or alive and who are involved in the said offence and to see the same within a few days.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, more so in view of the fact that, in the forwarding report, the only allegation is that the petitioner had contacted her husband, who is accused in the said offence and the arrest was only on suspicion and also due to the fact that she has been inside the jail for last 27 days and also in view of the fact that, the provision made with regard to women in case of bail application, this court enlarges the petitioner on bail, on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the SDJM, North Salmara, Abhayapuri under the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall positively appear before the Investigating Officer without fail as and when call for.
(ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witness connected with the case; and
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave their residence without prior permission of the Investigating Officer.
7. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant