Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24733 (GAU)

JESMINARA BEGUM AND ANR v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./3778/2025 · 2025-12-03

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010259822025 2025:GAU-AS:16707 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3778/2025 JESMINARA BEGUM AND ANR D/O IMAN ALI R/O BARTAL KACHARIB ARI,P.S. MOIRABARI, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM PRESENT ADDRESS- 9TH MILE, NEAR GORU BAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/OLATE MUSLIMUDDIN R/O NAMCHUBURI PANB ARI P.S. DHEKIAJULI DIST. SONITPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MS S ABDULLAH,MR. S HAQUE,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 04.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.M Abdullah P, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application u/s 483 BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the petitioners namely (1) Jesminara Begum and (2) Zakir Hussain in connection with Hajo P.S Case No. 482/2025 registered u/s 127(2)/308(4)/61(2)/3(5)/140(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the informant’s uncle i.e. the alleged victim was in a relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and had voluntarily gone to her house and the allegation of kidnapping and demanding ransom is absolutely false and concocted. It is further submitted that it is not possible for the petitioner No. 1, who is a lady and the petitioner no. 2, to kidnap a grown up man like the victim from Hajo to Dhekiajuli. 4. A perusal of the Case Diary also does not indicate the actual manner in which the kidnapping took place or as to whether the victim was threatened with any weapon etc. The victim is a 60 year old person. 5. Having regard to the above as well as period of detention of about 18 days, further detention of the petitioners is not considered necessary. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 7. The above named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- each with 1(one) surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. J.M.F.C, Hajo. 8. It is further provided that the petitioner : (i) shall not abscond. (ii) shall be available for trial. Page No.# 3/3 (iii) shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the evidence. (iv) shall not misuse their liberty to commit any illegal acts or offences. 9. Bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant