Gauhati High Court
AB/2092/2026 of RIJAUL KARIM HOQUE ALIAS REJAUL KARIM ALIAS RIJAYUL KARIM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 16 September 2026
GAHC010187702026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2092/2026 RIJAUL KARIM HOQUE ALIAS REJAUL KARIM ALIAS RIJAYUL KARIM S/O MAINUL HOQUE, R/O VILL. KADAMTAL, P.S. NAGAON SADAR, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, INDIA VERSUS THE STATE
GAHC010187702026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/2092/2026
RIJAUL KARIM HOQUE ALIAS REJAUL KARIM ALIAS RIJAYUL KARIM
S/O MAINUL HOQUE, R/O VILL. KADAMTAL, P.S. NAGAON SADAR, DIST.
NAGAON, ASSAM, INDIA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM.
2:LUTFUN NAHAR
D/O NAJIFUR RAHMAN
VILL. PANIKHAITI DEORI GAON
P.S. NAGAON SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MRS H AHMED,MR. SAYED SALIM
AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR J ISLAM,E BEGUM(R2),MR J ISLAM(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE 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
Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Also heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 152/2026 (Arising out of Nagaon P.S. Case No. 302/2026) registered under Sections 87/ 65(1)/ 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 67A of the I.T. Act, 2000, pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, Assam.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that one Luthfur Nahar lodged an FIR before the O.C., Nagaon Sadar P.S. alleging inter alia that on 21.03.2026 she allongwith her minor daughter went to their family residence in Nagaon and the FIR named accused took her to his residences and forcefully established physical relationship with her daughter and also recorded her obscene videos and the accused No. 2 was aware about the recording of the videos but she concealed the same. The informant further alleged that she saw her daughter’s obscene videos in the mobile phone of the co-villagers. On enquiry, her daughter informed that she has love affairs with the accused and he sexually assaulted her and recorded her videos with false pretext of marriage and when she refused to talk to the accused, the accused made the videos viral.
4. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is a student of class 11 and there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim and since the investigation of the case is also over, the petitioner may be allowed the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
5. The learned Additional P.P. submits that the statement of the victim though indicates that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim nevertheless shows that the petitioner forcefully committed sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent and not only that, he also videographed the same and circulated the obscene video by making it viral, which has damaged the reputation of the victim girl who is aged only 15 years old.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ informant submits that the informant and the victim are yet to be examined at the trial and in the event the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, strict conditions may be imposed.
7. Having regard to the incriminating material available against the petitioner and the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for the granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the prayer for pre- arrest bails stands rejected.
8. The petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant