Nur Hussain Vs The State of Ap

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040002212026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : BA/16/2026

¶5

Nur Hussain

¶6

Son of Late Mokbul Hussain, permanent resident of Tinthengia, PO Doulatpur, PS Bihpuria, Lakhimpur District, Assam and presently residing at Pachin Colony, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Reyom Karga, Tadak Sora,Licha Rakap,Geba Lomi,T Dada

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 07-04-2026

¶15

Heard Mr. R. Karga, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for release of the accused, Shri Dullal Hussain, on bail in connection with Sessions Case No. 22/2025 under Sections

¶17

Page No.# 2/6

¶18

64(1)/309(4)/314/238(B) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 26/2025, who has been arrested on 24.04.2025.

¶19

3. The applicant is the father of the accused person. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2025, an F.I.R. was lodged by the victim Ms. “X” (name withheld) against the accused person, namely, Shri Dullal Hussain, alleging inter alia that on 22.04.2025, the accused person had forcibly committed rape upon her near Lekhi Bridge. It is further alleged that the accused person took away her mobile phone along with certain personal documents. Accordingly, a case was registered being Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 26/2025 under Sections 64(1)/309(4) of the BNS, 2023. The accused person was arrested on 24.04.2025 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

¶20

4. After completion of the investigation, the Police has filed the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 59/2025, dated 22.06.2025, against the accused person under Sections 64(1)/309(4)/314/ 238(b) of the BNS, 2023, which is pending trial before the Sessions Court, Yupia.

¶21

5. The accused person has approached the learned Trial Court for grant of bail; however, the bail applications were rejected on the ground that the victim is yet to be examined and there is likelihood of tampering with the evidence if he is released on bail. Hence, the present bail application.

¶22

6. Mr. R. Karga, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the alleged incident occurred on 22.04.2025, however, the F.I.R. was lodged on 24.04.2025, i.e. after a delay of two days, without any explanation for such delay. He submits that delay in lodging the F.I.R. is a relevant factor to be considered while deciding a bail application, particularly when the same remains

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

unexplained, which casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations. He submits that the allegations are concocted and are an afterthought.

¶25

7. Mr. Karga, learned counsel submits that the accused person was not provided with the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest, for which the procedure adopted in arresting the accused is vitiated. He further submits that, as per the statements of the victim before the Police, there are serious material contradictions, which have raised serious doubt on the prosecution case.

¶26

8. Mr. Karga, learned counsel, submits that the accused person has been in judicial custody for more than nine months, which amounts to punishment before trial. The accused has all along fully cooperated with the investigation and as the Charge-sheet has been filed and the Trial has commenced, there is no requirement to keep the accused in custody, as the investigating authority has got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation. He submits that merely because the victim has not yet been examined, the right of the accused person to be released on bail cannot be curtailed, as there is no justification to keep the petitioner in prolonged incarceration before and during the trial of the case. Therefore, he prays that the accused person may be released on bail on any condition that may be imposed by this Court.

¶27

9. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that although the trial has commenced, the victim and some important witnesses are yet to be examined and the next date is fixed on 10.06.2026. The victim and the accused are known to each other and if the accused is released on bail at this stage, there is every possibility of tampering with the evidence and he may also threaten the victim. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the trial commences, in serious and heinous offences like the present one, normally the accused should not be released on bail until the trial is completed.

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

Therefore, he submits that the accused person is not entitled to be granted bail in view of the seriousness of the offences against him and, as such, the bail application may be rejected.

¶30

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Trial Court Record (TCR).

¶31

11. The accused person, Shri Dullal Hussain, was arrested on 24.04.2025 pursuant to the F.I.R. dated 24.04.2025 lodged by the victim, alleging that the accused had committed rape upon her, with a further allegation that he took away her mobile phone along with certain documents. The victim was medically examined and her statement was recorded, which appears to be in consonance with the F.I.R., as she clearly stated that she underwent medical treatment at TRIHMS, Naharlagun, on the night of the incident, i.e., 22.04.2025. The medical report was submitted along with the F.I.R.

¶32

12. As per the Charge-sheet, it is reflected that during the investigation, the mobile phone of the accused person was seized, which contained WhatsApp chats between the accused and the victim. The accused admitted to having sexual intercourse, but consensual. He also stated that he left the victim because she had demanded money, which he could not provide. On being led by the accused, the belongings of the victim, which were alleged to have been taken away by him, were recovered. However, the victim’s mobile phone could not be recovered.

¶33

13. The records reveal that the accused person and the victim were known to each other prior to the incident, which is supported by the WhatsApp chat between them. They had met before and came into contact again on the day of the alleged incident. It reveals that the accused approached the victim in his

¶34

Page No.# 5/6

¶35

vehicle bearing registration No. AR-01S-1752 and offered her a lift, which the victim accepted. However, instead of taking her to the destination, the accused diverted the vehicle to a secluded area near Borum Bridge, an isolated open field, where he allegedly assaulted her sexually inside the vehicle.

¶36

14. Upon consideration of the above, although there appears a prima facie case established against the accused, considering that the accused person, Shri Dullal Hussain, has been in judicial custody since 24.04.2025, i.e., for more than nine months and the Charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial has commenced, this Court is of the opinion that the period of long incarceration undergone by the accused could be considered as a ground for bail with the conditional liberty considering the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore, I am inclined to admit the accused to bail as long incarceration before the conviction would amount to punishment more so, no further custodial interrogation is required as the trail has commenced.

¶37

15. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, the accused, namely, Shri Dullal Hussain, in connection with Sessions Case No. 22/2025 under Sections 64(1)/309(4)/314/238(B) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arising out of Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 26/2025, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

(i) . that the accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

(ii). that the accused shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia; and

¶41

(iii). that the accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, without prior permission.

¶42

16. In terms of above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Nur Hussain v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nur Hussain v. The State of Ap

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

Montu Tachiring Vs Ms Reena Siyum

Dr Mohesh Chai Vs Karikho Kri

Sijo Potom Vs The State of Ap

Miss Tumbom Badak Vs The State of Ap

Salma Khatun Vs The State of Ap

Smti Ide Eshi Ete Vs Lipe Ete