Gauhati High Court
AB/1927/2026 of ABDUL JALIL Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 27 August 2026
GAHC010175082026 2026:GAU-AS:12434 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1927/2026 ABDUL JALIL S/O FARIJ UDDIN VILL BARJAHA GAON P.S. LANKA DIST HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
GAHC010175082026
2026:GAU-AS:12434
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1927/2026
ABDUL JALIL
S/O FARIJ UDDIN
VILL BARJAHA GAON
P.S. LANKA DIST HOJAI ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MS. F B CHOUDHURY,MR A AHMED,U U
KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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 : 28-08-2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional PP for the State.
2. The petitioner namely, Abdul Jalil, is seeking anticipatory bail under section 482 BNSS in connection with Lanka PS Case No. 179/2026 registered under section 61(2)/70(1)/89 BNS.
3. The FIR dated 08.08.2026 was lodged by the father of the alleged victim with the allegation that her husband stayed far away and she lives along with her child and suffers from mental illness. Taking advantage of the same, the accused No. 1 of the said FIR established relationship with her, resulting in pregnancy which was subsequently terminated. It is further alleged that after the incident, the accused No. 1 sent the remaining 4 (four) accused persons and they also established physical relationship with the victim accordingly leading to another pregnancy. One Jalil Uddin, son of unknown, is mentioned as accused No. 5 in the FIR.
4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is Abdul Jalil and he is not at all involved in the incident. Drawing attention to para 4 of the petition, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner seeks to render cooperation with the investigation and also undergo DNA test, if necessary. It is submitted that he has been falsely implicated.
5. The case diary has been received and after going through the same, the learned Additional PP submits that the victim has implicated the accused No. 1 and said that other persons have also exploited her. It is submitted that she has mentioned about one Jalil Uddin, whose name is also stated in the FIR. The petitioner is stated to be the son of one Farij Uddin.
6. Considering the contentions of the petitioner and also on the aspect of discrepancy of name, his contention about given a chance to cooperate with the investigation can be accepted.
7. In such view of the matter, I allow this anticipatory bail petition.
8. Accordingly, in the event the petitioner is arrested in connection with this case, he shall be allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority subject to the following conditions:-
(i) he shall cooperate with the investigation;
(ii) he shall appear before the IO, making himself available for examination;
(iii) he shall not hamper or tamper with evidence;
(iv) he shall not in any manner harm, intimidate or harass the informant or his family members;
(v) he shall not commit any illegal activities or offences.
9. Violation of any of the bail conditions would entail cancellation of the bail.
10. Anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of.
11. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant