Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./908/2026 of SAJID AHMED Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 18 May 2026
GAHC010063702026 2026:GAU-AS:6899 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./908/2026 SAJID AHMED SON OF LATE SIRAJ UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILL- TALTOLA, KANKARCHAK, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
GAHC010063702026
2026:GAU-AS:6899
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./908/2026
SAJID AHMED
SON OF LATE SIRAJ UDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILL- TALTOLA, KANKARCHAK, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST.
SRIBHUMI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:NAZIM UDDIN
SON OF LATE TASIR UDDIN
VILL- ALOMKHANI THAMUA
P.S. NILAMBAZAR
DIST. SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. S S HAZARIKA(AMICUS CURIAE)
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
19.05.2026 Heard Mr. H.R Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State. The petitioner in the bail petition had earlier approached this Court by preferring Bail Application No. 3754/2025, which came to be rejected on 16.12.2025, recording the then prevalent situation. The petitioner was granted liberty in case of further development in the matter. It appears that the trial is yet to proceed, and the statement of the alleged victim has not yet been recorded by the Trial Court. This was also the situation when the bail petition was last rejected by noting the apprehension that granting bail, at this stage, may prejudice the trial. This Court does not find any new development in the matter to reconsider the rejection made in the earlier petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non- proceeding of the trial itself is a ground. We do not find it feasible to grant the petitioner the privilege at this stage when the statement of the victim is yet to be recorded in the Trial. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected. However, it is expected that the Trial Court would expedite the trial. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court again if there is further development in the matter. Bail application at this stage stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant