Rabiyal Hoque Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

1. Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/informant. Also heard Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

2. This application has been filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, 1. Rabiyal Hoque , has prayed for bail in connection with Special (P) Case No. 91(J)/2023, arising out of Jogighopa PS Case No.267/2018 registered under Section 366(A)/392 of IPC, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, North Salmara, Abhayapuri .

¶18

3. The said case is stated to be pending at a stage of trial before the learned Special Judge.

¶19

4. The accused is in under-trial detention for the last 301 days and that pursuant to his earlier non-appearance, NBWA was issued but he surrendered before the Court and thereafter, he was taken into the custody and remanded.

¶20

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will be available during the trial and so far, no prosecution witnesses have been examined though charge-sheet was submitted on 31.03.2023 and charges were framed on 04.07.2025.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

6. The gist of the allegation is about commission of sexual assault.

¶23

7. It is submitted from the petitioner’s side that he denies the allegation of sexual assault and that the accused and the victim girl had a love relationship which was opposed by the family.

¶24

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the victim is yet to be examined.

¶25

9. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2/informant has also opposes the bail at this stage submitting that the important witnesses have not been examined.

¶26

10. It appears from the above facts and circumstances that though the charge-sheet was filed in March, 2023 and charges framed on 04.07.2025, the prosecution evidence has not yet commenced.

¶27

11. In the meantime, the length of detention of the accused of 301 days also cannot be brushed aside in the backdrop of the said situation, vis-à-vis the principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

12. Upon giving my anxious consideration to the matter at hand, I am of the considered view that the accused can be granted bail at this stage, subject, however to the suitable conditions to protect the interest of the victim’s side.

¶29

13. Accordingly, the above-named accused petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Court of learned Special Judge, North Salmara, Abhayapuri with following conditions:

¶32

(i) That he shall appear regularly during the trial ;

¶33

(ii) That he shall not in any manner intimidate, annoy, threaten or harass the victim or her family ;

¶34

(iii) That he shall not hamper or tamper with evidence.

¶35

14. In case of violation of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution or the informant’s side shall have at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of the bail.

¶36

15. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of .

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Rabiyal Hoque v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabiyal Hoque 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

Hanif Ali Vs the State of Assam

Shri Kajal Das and Anr. Vs Bijoy Boro

Monoj Kumar Ghosh Alias Bijoy Ghosh Monoj Ghosh Vs the State of Assam

Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur Vs the State of Assam

Mujibur Rahman Laskar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Dhruba Jyoti Pathak and Anr. Vs the State of Assam