Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11287 (GAU)

MOZAMMEL HOQUE v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./1623/2026 · 2026-07-28

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010123182026 2026:GAU-AS:10409 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1623/2026 MOZAMMEL HOQUE SON OF JOYNUDDIN, VILL- KACHUMARA NC, 35 PS KACHUMARA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM. PH. 9859043615 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ALI, S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 29-07-20 26 Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, seeking bail of the petitioner, namely, Mozammel Hoque, who was arrested on 20.05.2026 in connection with Sessions Case No. 59/2026 arising out of Kachumara P.S. Page No.# 2/3 Case No. 22/2026 registered under Sections 64/69/82 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The scanned copy of the TCR has been received and perused the same. 4. The allegation as per the FIR is that the petitioner had kidnapped the daughter of the informant, aged about 20 years on 06.05.2026 and kept her in an unknown place and committed forceful rape upon her. The victim was subsequently recovered. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim was in a love affair with the petitioner and she voluntarily accompanied him and the informant’s side demanded money from the petitioner and upon refusal of the petitioner to pay the some, the FIR has been lodged after 16 days of the incident. 6. On perusal of the scanned copy of the TCR, it appears from the statement of the victim herself that she had a love affair with the petitioner for the last 3 years and voluntarily accompanied him. After recovery, the victim refused medical examination. The investigation of the case is also over. 7. Having regard to the above as well as the period of detention of 41 days, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary. 8. Hence, the bail prayer is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the aforementioned case with the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not abscond and he shall be available for the remaining trial; (ii) that the petitioner shall not try to contact the victim or her family Page No.# 3/3 members; (iii) that the petitioner shall not try to influence or intimidate any person or the remaining witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts of the case, in any manner. (iv) that the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 10. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail. 11. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant