Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11098 (GAU)

JIAUR RAHMAN AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/921/2025 · 2025-05-15

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010083702025 2025:GAU-AS:6107 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/921/2025 JIAUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O LATE SIRAJUL ISLAM VILL- SAFAKAMAR P.S. BARPETA ROAD DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM 2: NURJAMAL HOQUE S/O ALAUDDIN KHILJI VILL-SAFAKAMAR P.S. BARPETA ROAD DIST. BARPETA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, T UDDIN (FOR INFORMANT),MR. S AHMED (FOR INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 16-05-2025 Heard learned counsel H.A. Ahmed for the petitioner Nos. 1. Jiaur Rahman Page No.# 2/3 and 2. Nurjamal Hoque, who have filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending arrest in connection with Barpeta Road Police Station Case No. 11/2025 under Sections 87/70(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State and learned counsel Mr. S. Ahmed for the informant. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have tied up the hands and feet of the victim and took her in a vehicle and thereafter, committed sexual assault on the victim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a false case has been brought up against the petitioners. 5. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the informant have submitted that the petitioners are complicit. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 6. I have scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. 7. Petition stands rejected at this stage. 8. In terms of the above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 3/3 9. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant