Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2896/2026 of MD ABDUR RAHMAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 22 September 2026
GAHC010209042026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2896/2026 MD ABDUR RAHMAN S/O LT MOFIZ ALI, R/O VILL SILBHARAL, PS CHANGSARI, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
GAHC010209042026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2896/2026
MD ABDUR RAHMAN
S/O LT MOFIZ ALI, R/O VILL SILBHARAL, PS CHANGSARI, DIST KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR K THAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
23.09.2026 Heard Mr. D Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K K Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for the grant of bail to the accused person/petitioner, namely, Md. Abdur Rahman, in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 191/2026, registered under Sections 85/67/109/321(3)/117(2)/64/62 of the BNS, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegations as reflected in the FIR reveal that the complainant is the wife of the petitioner and both of them are police officials. The allegations pertain to torture, demand for dowry as well as rape.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a marital dispute is ongoing between the petitioner and the informant. The petitioner had also issued notice to the informant seeking divorce, a copy of which is annexed to the instant application, and that the present FIR is a counter-blast to the aforesaid notice.
5. It is also submitted that the offence relating to rape, as alleged in the FIR, is not attracted in the present case, as the informant is the wife of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the above and the nature of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant, and also the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not sought by the investigating agency, the prayer for bail is allowed on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Magistrate/Court.
7. It is provided that the petitioner shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the informant or any other witness, and shall not offer any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
8. The bail petition stands disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant