Gauhati High Court
AB/1837/2026 of MINHAJUL HOQUE Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 2 September 2026
GAHC010165872026 2026:GAU-AS:12798 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1837/2026 MINHAJUL HOQUE S/O- ABDUL MATIN VILL. GARIYA GAON P.S.- BHURAGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM Advocate
GAHC010165872026
2026:GAU-AS:12798
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1837/2026
MINHAJUL HOQUE
S/O- ABDUL MATIN VILL. GARIYA GAON P.S.- BHURAGAON DIST.
MORIGAON ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR A ALAM,MR. S M H ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, 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
03.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner namely, Ikramul Hussain @ Ikramul Hoque, who is apprehending arrest, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Bhuragaon P.S. Case No. 53/2026 under Sections 70(1)/61(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS, r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2026 at about 4 p.m., the husband of the victim, namely, Ribul Alom, along with five other co-accused persons, including the present applicant, allegedly committed gang rape upon the victim.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is completely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the applicant, being a friend of the husband of the victim, has been unnecessarily dragged into the matter by the prosecution.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed by the learned trial court dated 17.07.2026, wherein it has been recorded that the victim woman was present before the court in person and submitted an affidavit stating therein that the accused, Ribul Alom, is her husband and that she had never mentioned the name of her husband as an accused, but the villagers misunderstood the actual situation and wrongly implicated her husband as an accused in the instant case. It is contended that in view of the aforesaid stand of the victim, no case is made out against the co-accused, including the present petitioner.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, and in particular, the aforesaid statement of the victim, the learned trial court had granted bail to the said co-accused, Ribul Alom.
7. The Case Diary called for has been received, and upon perusal of the same, including the statements of the victim, it is seen that she has squarely implicated the present petitioner as one of the participants in the alleged rape committed upon her. The stand of the victim as reflected in the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2026 passed by the learned trial court is confined to the husband of the victim, i.e., Ribul Alom, and cannot be said to enure to the benefit of any of the other co-accused persons.
8. A coordinate bench of this Court by order dated 07.08.2026 in AB No. 1646/2026 had rejected the bail application of another co-accused.
9. Having regard to the above and considering the nature and gravity of the accusation and the specific incriminating material against the applicant, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
10. Accordingly, the prayer stands rejected. The bail petition stands dismissed.
11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant