Gauhati High Court
AB/724/2026 of MD MIRAJ ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 16 August 2026
GAHC010067652026 2026:GAU-AS:11643 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/724/2026 MD MIRAJ ALI SON OF LATE ASHIR ALI RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 6, JANAKPUR BYE LANE, BISHNU RABHA PATH, BELTOLA, P.S. BASISTHA CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-28, DIST.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010067652026
2026:GAU-AS:11643
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/724/2026
MD MIRAJ ALI
SON OF LATE ASHIR ALI
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 6, JANAKPUR BYE LANE, BISHNU RABHA PATH, BELTOLA, P.S. BASISTHA CHARIALI, GUWAHATI-28, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MD. JIAUR RAHMAN
SON OF MD. MOJIBOR RAHMAN
RESIDENT OF KARMAPUR
B/L NO. 6
GUWAHATI-20
PH. NO. 986443061
Advocate for the Petitioner : L K BORAH, C KALITA,MR. D K BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/2
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
17.08
. 2026 Heard Mr. L.K. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. for the State and Ms. Parasar, learned Amicus Curiae, to represent respondent No.2.
2. The present application is praying for the grant of privilege of a pre-arrest bail in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.47/2026 under Section 62/64 (1)/ 329 (4) BNS, 2023 read with Section 8 of POCSO Act.
3. The Case Diary has been received and perused.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P and the Amicus Curiae have been considered.
5. Looking at the stage of investigation and the evidence collected, this Court is of the opinion that the participation of the petitioner in the investigation would be necessary and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the privilege of an anticipatory bail at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected at this stage.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant