Dismissed¶28

Abdul Malek v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC9 Nov 2025Bail Appln./3093/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, Bail Appln./3093/2025 (neutral citation 2025:GAU-AS:15148), order dated 10.11.2025 by Justice Anjan Moni Kalita. Bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 sought by Abdul Malek in Jogighopa P.S. Case No.93/2025 (Section 64(2)(m) BNS, 2023 r/w Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012); FIR dated 04.08.2025 over physical relationship with minor victim, birth of child and discovery of buried dead infant; arrest 08.08.2025, 94 days in custody, charge-sheet filed without charge framing; bail rejected due to incriminating materials in case diary. Respondents: State of Assam (APP R.R. Kaushik) and respondent no. 2 Krishna Kumar Das (Amicus Curiae T. Deuri); petitioner's counsel: A.K. Azad, G. Uddin, I. Hussain, N. Jamal.

What did the court decide?

None; bail application rejected. ¶28

Abdul Malek Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010214252025

2025:GAU-AS:15148

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./3093/2025

¶6

ABDUL MALEK SON OF JELAM UDDIN, R/O VILL- TINKONIA, P.S. JOGIGHOPA, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:KRISHNA KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE BIRENDRA KR DAS R/O VILL- AND P.O. MALEGARH P.S. JOGIGHOPA DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783382 PH. NO. 600230297

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K AZAD, G UDDIN,MR. I HUSSAIN,MR N JAMAL

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. T DEURI, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2)

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

10.11.2025

¶14

1. Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the accused applicant as well as Mr. T. Deuri, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no.2. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused applicant, namely, Abdul Malek, praying for grant of bail in connection with Jogighopa P.S Case No.93/2025 registered under Section 64(2) (m) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 6 of POCSO Act,2012.

¶16

3. An FIR dated 04.08.2025 was lodged by the informant alleging inter alia, that the accused applicant, namely, Abdul Malek, on the pretext of having love affair with the victim girl, who is a minor, had physical relationship with her; that though the villagers were suspecting a love affair and physical relationship between the accused applicant and the victim girl as they did not have any proper information, they did not do anything in that regard; that on 31.07.2025, one maternal uncle’s daughter of the victim girl informed the women of the village that the victim girl had given birth to a child and the child had been buried at the backside of their house; that on getting such information, the villagers went to the

¶17

Page No.# 3/4

¶18

home of the victim girl and on questioning, the grandmother of the victim girl disclosed that the victim girl had given birth to a child; that the villagers then went to the backside of the house and found the dead body of a child buried behind the house.

¶19

4. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and the aforementioned case was registered against the accused applicant.

¶20

5. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused was arrested on 08.08.2025 and since then for the last 94 days, he is behind the bars.

¶21

6. He further submits that though the police has filed a charge-sheet, no charge has been framed against him as yet and in view of the aforesaid facts along with taking into account his long detention behind the bars, he prays that this Court may allow the accused applicant to go on bail.

¶22

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the offence involved is serious and heinous crime and as per the case diary which contains statements of the victim as well as the other witnesses clearly point fingers to the guilt of the accused applicant in the instant case. Therefore, he submits that this is not a fit case wherein this Court should allow the accused applicant to go on bail.

¶23

8. Mr. T. Deuri, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no.2 supports the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and submits that due to various incriminating materials against the accused applicant, this Court

¶24

Page No.# 4/4

¶25

should not allow the accused applicant to go on bail at this stage.

¶26

9. This Court has gone through the case diary submitted before this Court as well as heard the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

10. After due consideration of the materials before this Court and finding various incriminating materials against the accused applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not fit case wherein the accused applicant should be allowed to go on bail at this stage.

¶28

11. In view of the aforesaid prima-facie finding, this instant bail application is rejected.

¶29

12. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Malek v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Malek v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dildar Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Gunaram Pegu Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sahanur Sheikh Alias Sahanur Ali Vs the State of Assam

Smti Shyama Bora Vs the State of Assam

Rinku Das Vs the State of Assam

Jitu Das Vs the State of Assam