Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1852/2026 of ALI HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 26 August 2026
GAHC010138682026 2026:GAU-AS:11164 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1852/2026 ALI HUSSAIN S/O-TARA MIYA, VILL- KOROIGAR BORKURANI, PS- MAYONG, DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM -782121 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY
GAHC010138682026
2026:GAU-AS:11164
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1852/2026
ALI HUSSAIN
S/O-TARA MIYA, VILL- KOROIGAR BORKURANI, PS- MAYONG, DIST.
MORIGAON ASSAM -782121
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF ASSAM.
2:AIJUL HOQUE (INFORMANT)
S/O LATE SAMSUL HUDA VILL- 1 NO. GAGOLMARI
PS MAYONG
DISTRICT - MORIGAON
ASSAM - 78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. C SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR R A AHMED(R2),MR. S BISWAS(R2),MR A
ALAM(R2),MRS R BEGUM(R2),MR. A A MONDAL(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
27.08
. 2026 Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P for the State and Mr. A. Alom, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the petitioner, namely, Ali Hussain, in connection with Mayong P.S. Case No. 49/2026 under Section 137 (2)/ 70 (2) BNS R/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. Mr. S. K. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as per the FIR, the allegations levelled against the present petitioner are that he, along with two others, had taken away the minor victim, had raped her and left her in an unconscious state at the embankment near the market. He has submitted that, as per the medical report, there is no sign of any sexual activity and, further, it is an admitted position that the petitioner herein and the alleged minor victim were having a love affair. He has submitted that there was no physical interaction between them. Therefore, he has prayed that the petitioner, aged about 19 years and who has spent 72 days in detention, may be granted the privilege of bail during the remaining period of investigation.
4. The learned Addl. P.P has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave, as two other persons had accompanied him to assist him in raping the victim and, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the family members of the petitioner herein are threatening the informant to settle the matter out of Court and, therefore, the privilege of bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage.
6. I have considered the materials available, and I have also seen the Case Diary which the learned Addl has produced. P.P.
7. Having regard to the absence of any medical evidence, the statement made before the doctor, who had recorded the first history, and the age of the present petitioner, which is about 19 years, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the present may not be necessary, in the event strict conditions are imposed for him to not to interfere or interact in any manner with the informant or the family members of the informant including the alleged minor victim.
8. In such circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- with two local sureties, who have command and control over the petitioner, of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon, Assam.
9. The learned Special Judge, POCSO shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be necessary to ensure that the petitioner does not in any manner interfere with the investigation of the case.
10. It is further provided that the petitioner shall not reside in the vicinity/locality of the minor victim nor shall in any manner interact, coerce or threaten either the minor victim or family members of the minor victim in any manner whatsoever.
11. The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of the interim relief for the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant