Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2054/2026 of MD AMIR HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 14 September 2026
GAHC010146362026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2054/2026 MD AMIR HUSSAIN S/O MD ABDUL KASEM R/O- BALIDOGA P.S.- SOOTEA DISTRICT- BISWANATH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010146362026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2054/2026
MD AMIR HUSSAIN
S/O MD ABDUL KASEM R/O- BALIDOGA P.S.- SOOTEA DISTRICT- BISWANATH, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:SMTI DIPIKA MAGOR
D/O SRI GOPI MAGOR R/O- VILLAGE DIPLONGA P.O. AND P.S.- SOOTIA
DISTRICT- BISWANATH
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A RAJKHOWA, MR. R P HAZARIKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. FARJINA AJMI(INFORMANT),MR. J
ABBAS(INFORMANT)
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 : 15.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Page No.# 2/2 This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the petitioner, Md Amir Hussain, has prayed for granting his bail after he was arrested in Sootea Police Station Case NO. 52/2026 (In G.R. Case No.274/2026) under Sections 137(2)/64(I)/351(2)/3(5) BNS, Read with Section 4 of POCSO Act. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he, along with his co- accused, committed penetrative sexual assault upon two victim girls both aged about 16 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer for bail may be considered having regard to the period of detention of more than 100 days. The scanned copy of the TCR reveals that although charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offence has been taken, the trial is yet to commence and, therefore, the victims have not yet been examined. Furthermore, the statements of the victims squarely implicate the petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid incriminating materials, the stage of the proceeding and the gravity of the offence, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant