Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2673/2026 of MUSARAF ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 21 September 2026
GAHC010195092026 2026:GAU-AS:14016 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2673/2026 MUSARAF ALI S/O NUR HUSSAIN, R/O BORGHORA PART-I, P/S JOGIGHOPA, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY
GAHC010195092026
2026:GAU-AS:14016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2673/2026
MUSARAF ALI
S/O NUR HUSSAIN, R/O BORGHORA PART-I, P/S JOGIGHOPA, DISTRICT
BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:AFRUJA PARBIN
D/O ASHRAF ALI MOLLA
R/O KANARA BIL BARTURI
P.S. JOGIGHOPA
DISTRICT BONGAIGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, E BEGUM(R2),MR J ISLAM(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
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 : 22.09.2026
Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I.U. Chowhdury, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1; and Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS, 2023 is preferred by accused, namely, Musaraf Ali, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Jogighopa P.S Case No. 119/2026, U/S 3(5)/61(2)/64/143(4)/351(3) of BNS, 2023 R/W Section 4/17 of POCSO Act, 2012, for grant of bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Aliza Parbin (actual name withheld) on 07.08.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR is that alluring to marry her, one Mosharaf Ali committed sexual intercourse with her, and later on, she came to know that his marriage is already fixed with another girl, and thereafter, she refused to maintain relationship with him. But, since then, he had been subjecting her to mental harassment by threatening to make her videos and photographs viral in social media. Thereafter, on 27.07.2026, at about 8:30 p.m., one Nur Husain had taken her to the house of one Mizanur Rahman, who had taken her to Chennai and handed her over to Mosharaf Ali, wherein Mosharaf Ali committed sexual intercourse with her and then left her at Chennai. Thereafter, Mizanur Rahman took her to Kerala and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and when her family members arrived at Chennai, then Mizanur Rahman left Chennai and fled away and her family members recovered her.
4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused submits that the accused and the respondent No. 2 have entered into a compromise and that the respondent No. 2 presently has no grievance against the three accused persons and also she is not willing to continue with the case and she has no objection in the event of submitting final report by the police. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hazot for last 45 days and that further custodial detention of the accused may not be required in the interest of investigation, and therefore, he has contended to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1, has vehemently opposed the petition. Referring to the statement of the victim girl, recorded under Section 183, BNSS, Mr. Sarma submits that she has clearly implicated the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR and the offences are serious in nature. Mr. Sarma also submits that at the relevant point of time, the victim was a minor and as per the birth certificate, her date of birth is 05.08.2008, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. The case diary indicates prima facie material showing complicity of the accused with the offence alleged in the FIR. The allegations are serious in nature, and in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023, she has clearly implicated the accused with the offences, which are serious nature. Though it is the contention of the accused and respondent No. 2 that a compromise has been worked out, yet, the offences are not compoundable and it has far implication in the society and also upon the dignity of the petitioner.
8. Thus, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same, and also in view of the materials collected so far in the case diary, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused and accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.
9. Case diary be returned.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant