Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010139732026 2026:GAU-AS:10295 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1874/2026 SAMINUL HOQUE S/O ABDUL JALIL R/O NO. 5 BHANDARA, P.S. MANIKPUR, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ASADUL ISLAM S/O HOCHEN ALI R/O VILLAGE NO. 6 BHANDARA P.O. BHANDARA BAZAR P.S. MANIKPUR DISTRICT BONGAIGAON ASSAM PH. NO. 957766371 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A SHARMA(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. K. Parashar, Page No.# 2/3 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Saminul Hoque, who has been languishing in jail hajot in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 39/2026, registered under Section 87 BNS, with added Sections 127(2)/64(1)/61(2)(a)/336(2)/49/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 4/17 of the POCSO Act, read with Sections 9/10/11 of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act. 3. It is to be noted here that the above noted case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Asadul Islam on 02.06.2026. The essence of allegation against the accused is that on 01.06.2026, at about 12:30 AM, while the minor sister of the informant went out to attend the call of nature, she was found missing. Later on, the informant came to know that the accused has kidnapped his sister and kept her confined in an unknown place and that he also tried to forcefully marry her. 4. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the accused submits that as per the affidavit ‘Annexure-3’ at page no. 15, the date of birth of the victim is 15.03.2008 and in that view of the matter, she has already attained majority at the relevant point of time and that no offence, as alleged in the FIR is made out against the present accused and therefore, he has contended to allow the application. 5. Per contra, Mr. Parashar, learned APP for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the petition. Producing the case diary before this Court, Mr. Parashar submits that the Investigating Officer, during investigation, has seized Page No.# 3/3 the High School Leaving Certificate of the victim, which indicates that her date of birth was 15.09.2008 and in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, 2023, she has implicated the accused with the offences alleged in the FIR and the offences alleged in the FIR are serious in nature and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the case diary, with the assistance of Mr. Parashar, learned APP. 7. The case diary indicates complicity of the accused with the offences alleged in the FIR. The allegations are serious in nature and investigation is still going on and at this stage, it cannot be said that further custodial detention of the accused is not warranted in the interest of justice. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 9. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant