Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1745/2026 of MOFIDUL HUSSAIN, Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 1 July 2026
GAHC010132382026 2026:GAU-AS:9456 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1745/2026 MOFIDUL HUSSAIN, SON OF LATE ABDUS SATTAR, RESIDENT OF KARBALA WARD NO. 13, P.S. GOALPARA, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010132382026
2026:GAU-AS:9456
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1745/2026
MOFIDUL HUSSAIN,
SON OF LATE ABDUS SATTAR, RESIDENT OF KARBALA WARD NO. 13, P.S.
GOALPARA, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR. M A CHOUDHURY,MR A AHMED,U U
KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M Z 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
02.07.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP for the State. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, seeking the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, namely, Mofidul Hussain, in connection with Krishnai P.S. Case No. 44/2026, registered under Sections 69 and 351(2) & (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was arrested on 13.06.2026. The alleged victim lodged the FIR on 07.06.2026. The allegations, in a nutshell, are that while she was working at a Suzuki showroom in the locality, she became acquainted with its owner, who was later identified as Mofidul Islam. It is alleged that they developed a love affair, during which they also established a physical relationship. The informant further alleged that the petitioner thereafter threatened to make their private photographs viral and, by extending such threats, repeatedly compelled her to maintain a physical relationship against her will on several occasions. It is also alleged that as a result of such acts, she became mentally distressed and remained confined to her house. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the electronic evidence, if any, has already been seized by the police. The case diary has been received. In her statement recorded during the investigation before the learned JMFC, she has made assertions on similar lines as in the FIR, including allegations that the petitioner threatened to make her private photographs viral. The allegations of threat thus find place both in the FIR as well as in her statement recorded before the learned JMFC.
It is also revealed from the case diary that the victim was referred for medical examination and the medical report indicates mental trauma consistent with allegations of blackmail. It further appears that one electronic device has been sent for forensic examination. Investigation is still in progress at this stage. I deem it prudent to refuse bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected. The case diary is returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant