Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./3623/2026 of AMINUR ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 9 November 2026
GAHC010248842026 2026:GAU-AS:16476 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3623/2026 AMINUR ISLAM S/O- NAZRUL HOQUE, R/O. VILL. - BALIJAN NO. 2, DHORARGHAT P.S.- GOURIPUR, DIST. - DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010248842026
2026:GAU-AS:16476
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3623/2026
AMINUR ISLAM
S/O- NAZRUL HOQUE, R/O. VILL. - BALIJAN NO. 2, DHORARGHAT P.S.- GOURIPUR, DIST. - DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR. A Z AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
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
10.11.2026 Heard Mr M Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent/Assam.
2. By this application the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Hatigaon PS Case No. 232/2026 registered under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023.
3. The FIR in connection with which the petitioner was arrested on
30.10.2026, was lodged by the victim herself, stating, inter alia, that she was in love with the petitioner and that the petitioner brought her from Dhubri and they both were staying together in a rented house at Hatigaon. The informant further stated that on 26.06.2026, the petitioner took away gold ornaments as well as some cash amount, telling her that he would marry her and that he stayed in the room of one of his friends. The informant further stated that on 10.06.2026, she went and searched the petitioner in the room of his friend, but the friend of the petitioner apprised her that he had left with his clothes and that he is no longer with him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story narrated in the FIR is a concocted story and that the victim is a married lady who had lured the petitioner and they were staying together. He further stated that the petitioner had not taken any gold or cash from her.
5. Mr D P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the Case Diary be perused to see the complicity of the petitioner in the offence.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, more so, in view of the fact that the FIR was lodged after almost one month from the date when the petitioner was found missing from his friend’s place and also due to the fact that the Police did not register the case with regard to the allegation that articles were taken by the petitioner from the victim, this Court finds it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro)/concerned Court, under the following conditions:-
i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer/concerned Court as and when called for.
ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses; and
iii) the petitioner shall not leave his residence without prior permission of the Investigating Officer.
7. Bail Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant