Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16172 (GAU)

SANIDUL ISLAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./2325/2025 · 2025-08-12

Mitali Thakuria

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010157582025 2025:GAU-AS:10781 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2325/2025 SANIDUL ISLAM S/O- LATE HASMAT ALI. VILL.- SONTOSHPUR PT-I, P.S.- MERERCHAR, DIST.- BONGAIGAON.ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, Page No.# 2/4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who was arrested in connection with Sessions Case No. 45(MCR)/2025 arising out of Mererchar P.S. Case No. 49/2024 under Sections 127(2)/64 of the BNS, 2023. 3. Scanned copy of the record has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hoque, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. Both the accused and the victim are relatives and the accused is only 19 years old boy, whereas, the victim is aged about 24 years. The victim proposed to marry the petitioner and on his refusal, she lodged the FIR with some false and concocted allegation against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2025 in the case and till date, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence. 6. He further submitted that even after receipt of summon, the victim/informant did not appear before the learned Trial Court and hence, vide order dated 10.06.2025, the learned Sessions Judge issued Bailable Warrant of Arrest (BWA) against the victim/informant. 7. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to contest the case by appearing before the learned Trial Court on every dates, to be fixed by the Court. 8. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that charge in the case was framed on 27.05.2025 and the case was fixed for evidence on 22.07.2025 and the next date was fixed on 05.08.2025. Page No.# 3/4 9. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. PP submitted that the victim/informant brought sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. Accordingly, he submitted that till the recording of evidence of the victim/informant, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may not be considered. 10. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, and I have also perused the records of the case as well as the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, wherefrom it reveals that inspite of receipt of summon, the victim/informant did not appear before the learned Trial Court for which the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.06.2025 the Court had to issue BWA against the victim/informant. Apart from that it is also seen that the victim is a major at the time of the incident. 11. Considering all these aspects of the case vis-à-vis the length of detention already undergone by the petitioner, I find that further custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of trial of the case. Accordingly, I find it a fit case to extent the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner, namely, Sanidul Islam, be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), North Salmara, Abhayapuri, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and Page No.# 4/4 (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), North Salmara, Abhayapuri, without prior permission. 13. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant