Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1943/2026 of SHOHIDUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 July 2026
GAHC010143072026 2026:GAU-AS:9797 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1943/2026 SHOHIDUL ISLAM SON OF NOSIM MUNCHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HELAPAKHRI, P.O. MORNOI, P.S. MORNOI, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN 783101. VERSUS THE
GAHC010143072026
2026:GAU-AS:9797
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1943/2026
SHOHIDUL ISLAM
SON OF NOSIM MUNCHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HELAPAKHRI, P.O.
MORNOI, P.S. MORNOI, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN 783101.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS S A KHALIFA,MR. S A WASI,MS F INTAZ
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, 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
17.07.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP for the State of Assam.
2. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting of bail to the petitioner, namely, Shohidul Islam, who has been in custody since 30.06.2026 in connection with Krishnai PS Case No. 50/2026 registered under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023.
3. The allegations leveled in the FIR are to the effect that the accused had induced the informant to enter into a romantic relationship with him on the promise of marriage. It is alleged that, during the course of the said relationship, the informant became pregnant and subsequently underwent an abortion. Thereafter, the accused allegedly refused to marry the informant, following which the present FIR came to be lodged. The petitioner was arrested on 30.06.2026. The grounds of arrest disclosed that he was taken into custody on the allegation of having sexually exploited the informant on the false promise of marriage and for the commission of the alleged offence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is a married woman and is presently involved in matrimonial litigation against her husband and other in-laws. In support of the said contention, a copy of the complaint filed by the informant in the D.V. case, as well as the complaint in the C.R. case instituted by her, has been annexed to the bail application. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, as the investigation can proceed without his continued detention. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the investigation.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the materials collected during the investigation disclose that the petitioner had induced the informant to enter into a relationship with him on the promise of marriage and had subsequently threatened her. It is contended that, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail at this stage of the investigation.
6. I have considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the materials placed on record, including the documents annexed to the bail application.
7. The petitioner has remained in custody for the last 17 days. There is no allegation that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the informant was without the consent of the informant.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at this stage. The petitioner, namely, Shohidul Islam, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, Assam.
9. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be deemed just and proper while considering and accepting the bail bond, in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant