Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2081/2026 of SADDAM HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 16 September 2026
GAHC010148102026 2026:GAU-AS:13828 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2081/2026 SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O-SANSUL HOQUE R/O-VILL- DHAKIN SOULMARI P.O-MAGURMARI P.S- RUPOHIHAT DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782140. VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010148102026
2026:GAU-AS:13828
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2081/2026
SADDAM HUSSAIN
S/O-SANSUL HOQUE R/O-VILL- DHAKIN SOULMARI P.O-MAGURMARI P.S- RUPOHIHAT DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM PIN-782140.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:AMBIA KHATUN
W/O- RAFIKUL ISLAM VILL- GEREKONI P.O P.S- DHING
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM PIN-78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, A A AHMED,MR. A W MONDAL,MR A
ALIM SK,MS. N NASRIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS T PARASHAR, Amicus Curiae, R2
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
17.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, as well as Ms. T.
Parashar, learned Amicus Curiae.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the petitioner, namely, Saddam Hussain, in connection with the Dhing P.S. Case No. 86/2026 under Section 137(2)/142/64(2)(m) BNS, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. The allegations, as stated in the FIR, are that the petitioner enticed the minor daughter of the complainant, who was aged about 16 years and 3 months at the time of occurrence, on the pretext of love and marriage, and wrongfully confined her in the house of the accused. Subsequently, the family members brought her home on the next date, and the accused, by threatening and intimidating the victim, established physical relations with her multiple times.
4. The case has been investigated and a charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 137(2)/142/64(1) of the BNS, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, charges have also been framed against the petitioner under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act and, alternatively, under Section 64(2)(b) of the BNS. The case is now pending for evidence.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations of forcible rape on multiple occasions are false and that the petitioner himself was a young boy aged 21 years and there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out the medical report, wherein the age of the victim has been opined to be between 18 and 20 years on the basis of the medical/radiological findings, although the school certificate shows her age to be 16 years and 3 months.
6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, as well as the learned Amicus Curiae, submit that the victim of the case is yet to be examined and that she is a minor as per the school certificate. It is further submitted that, as per the medical report, the hymen of the victim was not intact.
7. On perusal of the statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, it transpires that the victim eloped with the petitioner and that they had been in love for about four years. The victim was returned by the parents of the petitioner to her family on the next date. There is no allegation of forcible rape or sexual assault in her statement. In the meantime, the petitioner has spent 110 days in custody.
8. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that, as there is no allegation of forcible sexual intercourse in the statement of the victim, further detention of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purpose of the trial.
9. Accordingly, 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 learned trial Court.
10. It is provided that the petitioner shall not try to influence or intimidate the victim or her family members in any manner.
11. The bail petition stands disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant