Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./522/2026 of MUSSTT SORIFA KHATUN AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 24 March 2026
GAHC010032722026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./522/2026 MUSSTT SORIFA KHATUN AND ANR W/O - SOHIDUL ALI ALIAS MOINUL ALI, RESIDENCE OF WARD NO. 12, CHAPORIGAON, POLICE STATION - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT -
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010032722026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./522/2026
MUSSTT SORIFA KHATUN AND ANR
W/O - SOHIDUL ALI ALIAS MOINUL ALI, RESIDENCE OF WARD NO. 12, CHAPORIGAON, POLICE STATION - NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
2: MD SOHIDUL ALI ALIAS MOINUL ALI
S/O - BILLAL ALI
RESIDENCE OF WARD NO. 12
CHAPORIGAON
POST OFFICE - KHELMATI
POLICE STATION - NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM,
2:SRI BHABA KEOT
SON OF BHULA KEOT
RESIDENCE OF BHEREKI MAJORCHAPORI
POLICE STATION - PANIGAON
DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN NO. 787...
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U DUTTA, B DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR D BHATTACHARYA, AMICUS CURIAE, R2
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
25.03.2026 Heard Mr. D. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP for the State and Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no.2. The scanned copy of the trial court record has been perused. Having gone through the evidence recorded thus far, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected at this stage.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant