Gauhati High Court
AB/628/2026 of SHAH ALOM ALI ALIAS SHAHA ALOM SK Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 4 May 2026
GAHC010056062026 2026:GAU-AS:6124 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/628/2026 SHAH ALOM ALI ALIAS SHAHA ALOM SK SON OF ABDUL KADER, RESIDENT OF VILL- ALOMGANJ PART-IX, P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010056062026
2026:GAU-AS:6124
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/628/2026
SHAH ALOM ALI ALIAS SHAHA ALOM SK
SON OF ABDUL KADER,
RESIDENT OF VILL- ALOMGANJ PART-IX, P.S. GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:MRS. MOLINA BIBI
WIFE OF ANOWAR HOSEN
RESIDENT OF VILL- SAGUNCHARA
P.S. TAMARHAT
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL, MR. J HAQUE,P GANDHIYA,MS. A BORO,MR A
BRAHMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, A WAHID (R2),MR. A DHAR (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
Date : 05.05.2026
Heard Mr. A Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P in the matter and Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/informant.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, namely, Shah Alom Ali @ Shaha Alom Sk, in connection with Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 15/2026.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was out of a misconception and therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act as reflected in the FIR would not be attracted in this case.
4. The learned Addl. P.P has produced the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant has submitted that an affidavit has been filed clarifying the position where due a misconception, the FIR had been lodged. The affidavit also states that the alleged victim had made statements before the police out of fear and in any case they would not have any evidentiary value. He submits that in the event the petitioner is allowed the privilege of bail, there would be no threat to the victim.
6. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the informant that the grant a pre arrest bail to the petitioner would not cause any threat to either the victim or the informant, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted the privilege of pre arrest bail. Accordingly it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the investigating authority, who shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be necessary upon the petitioner to ensure his participation in the investigation.
7. The petitioner to appear before the investigating authority on or before the 15 of May, 2026.
8. Anticipatory bail is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant