Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1989/2026 of MOYNAL HOQUE ALIAS MAYNAL HOQUE Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 1 September 2026
GAHC010146492026 2026:GAU-AS:12712 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1989/2026 MOYNAL HOQUE ALIAS MAYNAL HOQUE S/O MANSER ALI, R/O WARD NO. 6, SATBER, PIN 783348, PS BILASHIPARA, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010146492026
2026:GAU-AS:12712
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1989/2026
MOYNAL HOQUE ALIAS MAYNAL HOQUE
S/O MANSER ALI, R/O WARD NO. 6, SATBER, PIN 783348, PS BILASHIPARA, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SUKUMAR GORIYA
S/O LT LAKHAN GORIYA
R/O WARD NO. 11
BILASHIPARA
PS BILASHIPARA
PIN 783348
DIST DHUBRI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BORAH, R KHATUN,MS B BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. SUSMITA DOLEY(R2),A MAHARSHI(R2),MS A
PAYENG(R2),MS. N S RAJKHOWA(R2),I GOGOI(R2),MR J PAYENG(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
02.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the petitioner in connection with Bilashipara P.S. Case No. 372/2025 under Sections 65(1)/70(2)/127(2)/137(2) of the BNS, 2023 r/w section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner, who is stated to be aged about 54 years, allegedly took the victim, aged about 14 years, to a paddy field and attempted to establish a sexual relationship with her. However, upon the arrival of three other persons, he fled the spot. The victim was subsequently subjected to rape by the said three persons, who have since been arrested.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has spent 272 days in custody, and considering the length of detention, he may be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have submitted that the petitioner took undue advantage of a 14-year-old minor girl, and since the case is at a crucial stage, the petitioner may not be released on bail.
6. The case has been charge sheeted, and the trial is in progress. The statements of the victim as well as some other witnesses have been recorded.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no allegations of penetrative sexual assault are present in the initial statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, but a different version has been developed by the victim in her deposition before the court. Furthermore, the three other co-accused persons, whom the victim alleged had committed rape upon her, have already been granted bail by the learned trial court by order dated 24.06.2026.
8. Having regard to the above and upon perusal of the material on record, and keeping in view the period of detention already undergone, the prayer for bail is allowed.
9. The petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, subject to the conditions that:
(i) The petitioner shall cooperate by appearing regularly at the trial
(ii) He shall not try to influence the remaining witnesses.
10. The bail petition stands allowed accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant