Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2086/2026 of ANOWAR HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 9 September 2026
GAHC010155492026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2086/2026 ANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL RAHMAN RESIDENT OF SINGIMARI PART-I, P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
GAHC010155492026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2086/2026
ANOWAR HUSSAIN
S/O ABDUL RAHMAN RESIDENT OF SINGIMARI PART-I, P.S. AND DIST.
DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MOFAZZEL HUSSAIN
S/O JOYNAL HOQUER/O BONNAKURIP.S. DIST. DHUBRIDIST.
DHUBRIASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS, MS. PUOTOUVII,MR. I U CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A NEOG, Amicus Curiae, 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 : 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. Also heard learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. A. Neog, learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting regular bail to the petitioner namely Anowar Hussain in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 180/2026 registered Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, added Sections 89/ 90(2)/ 238(a)/61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, who were arrested on 26.05.2026.
3. The allegation as per the FIR is that the petitioner had physical relationship with the victim, who was aged about 17 years, as a result of which she became pregnant and subsequently she was administered certain medicines which led to her untimely abortion and death.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner, Anowar Hussain never had any physical relationship with the victim and the accused named in the FIR is another Anowar Hussain, who is a resident of Bonnakuri, P.S. and District- Dhburi, Assam whereas the present petitioner Anowar Hussain is a resident of Singimari part-II, P.S. and District- Dbubri, Assam.
5. The scanned copy of the TCR is received and perused. It appears that the victim could not be examined by the I.O. and her statement could not be recorded by the learned Magistrate before she had expired. Although, the DNA test was conducted to establish the paternity of the unborn fetus by comparing with the DNA sample of the petitioner, as per the FSL report, the result remained inconclusive.
6. Having regard to the nature of the offences naturally there are no other eye witnesses. The other co-accused has already been enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
7. Having regard to the period of detention of 107 days in custody, the prayer for bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner named above be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of 20,000/- with 2 (two) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Dhubri, subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall participate in the trial of the case as and when one commences and shall not try to influence or intimidate any persons or witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case, in any manner.
9. The bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant