Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2308/2026 of JAHEDUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 30 August 2026
GAHC010171362026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2308/2026 JAHEDUL ISLAM S/O-MAHALI SHEIKH. VILL-NABAGATA SIMLITOLA. P.S-MATIA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENT BY THE P.P ASSAM.
GAHC010171362026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2308/2026
JAHEDUL ISLAM
S/O-MAHALI SHEIKH. VILL-NABAGATA SIMLITOLA. P.S-MATIA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENT BY THE P.P ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HOQUE, MR T GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
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
31.08.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Hoque, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.
2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused person, namely, Jahedul Islam, who has been languishing in jail hajot, in connection with Goalpara P.S. Case No. 123/2026, registered under Sections 69/88/308(2)/3(5) of BNS, 2023, since 07.07.2026.
3. It is to be noted here that the above noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Shamima Begum (actual name withheld) on 26.07.2026. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that he had committed sexual intercourse with the informant by employing deceitful means and also under false promise of marriage; and thereafter, she became pregnant and the accused caused miscarriage of the pregnancy without her consent and also extorted money from her.
4. Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused submits that this is the second bail application, and the first one was rejected by this Court, vide order dated 29.07.2026, in Bail Application No. 1964/2026, and this bail application is preferred on the ground that after rejection of the first bail application on 29.07.2026, more than one month has elapsed. 4.1 Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the offences are ’60 days offence’ and that having been arrested on 07.07.2026, he has been languishing in jail hajot for the last 56 days. He also submits that there were affairs between the accused and the informant, and they lived together as husband and wife, but subsequently, dispute surface between them and the informant lodged the case, and that the informant/victim got married to another person also. He also submits that in the meantime, investigation might have been completed and further custodial detention of the accused may not be required and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, he has contended to allow this application.
5. Per contra, Mr. Parashar, learned APP for the State respondent has opposed the application. He submits that investigation is going on and charge-sheet has not yet been filed and as such, it cannot be said at this stage, that further custodial detention of the accused may not be warranted in the interest of the investigation and as such, he has contended to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also perused the status of investigation, forwarded to this Court by Mr. Parashar, learned APP.
7. It appears that the accused has preferred one bail application, being Bail Application No. 1964/2026, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2026, and that since dismissal of the earlier bail application, more than one month has elapsed and the accused is languishing in jail hajot for the last 56 days, while the offences are of ’60 days offence’.
8. Further, from a perusal of the status of investigation and also from the submission of Mr. Parashar, learned APP, this Court finds that the material part of the investigation is almost over and there remains to submit the charge-sheet only.
9. In view of the progress of investigation and also in view of the period of detention (56 days in judicial custody), this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused may not be warranted in the interest of the investigation and accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.
10. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, the accused shall be enlarged on bail.
11. It is further provided that the accused shall not indulge in interfering with the investigation or in making inducement or threat to the witnesses.
12. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant