Allowed

Aftar Hussain v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2546/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail under conditions similar to a previous order, requiring a bail bond before the learned Special Judge (POCSO) due to the case transfer and addition of POCSO charges.

What did the court decide?

Directed to enlarge petitioner on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety before the learned Special Judge (POCSO).

Aftar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010187332026

2026:GAU-AS:13640

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2546/2026

¶6

AFTAR HUSSAIN

¶7

S/O LATE FOIJUL HOQUE, RESIDENTI OF VILLSIMALUGURI, P.O.SIMALUGURI, P.S.- KACHUA, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN782426.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM.

¶10

2:SMTI JUNALI KNOWAR W/O- LATE SUSHIL KNOWAR R/O- NEW SONOWAL TEA ESTATE P.S.- MARIANI DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78563

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS D KALITA, MS R KALITA,S I AKAND

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶15

ORDER

¶16

15.09.2026

¶17

1. Heard Mr. S.I. Akand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam.

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

2. The petitioner’s case is that he was arrested in connection with Mariani P.S. Case No. 58/2026 registered under Section 87 of the BNS, 2023. He applied for bail before the learned SDJM(M), Titabor but his prayer for bail was rejected. Thereafter, he approached this Court and was granted bail vide order dated 30.07.2026 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM(M), Titabor subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

¶20

3. It is stated by the petitioner that when he went to furnish the bail bond before the learned SDJM(M), Titabor he was informed that the charge sheet had already been submitted on 22.07.2026 and that another provision Section 4 of the POCSO Act, had been added to the offence alleged against the petitioner. He was also apprised that the case records along with the charge sheet had been forwarded to the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Jorhat. As such, he could not avail the benefit of the bail granted by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2026.

¶21

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge at the time when the bail application was moved before this Court, that the charge sheet had already been submitted and that Section 4 of the POCSO Act had been added.

¶22

5. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP, upon perusal of the case record places on record an application filed by the petitioner stating that he could not furnish the bail bond as the case had been transferred to the learned Special Judge, POCSO.

¶23

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that in

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

compliance with the order dated 30.07.2026, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jorhat subject to the conditions stipulated in the order dated 30.07.2026.

¶26

7. With the above modification, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Aftar Hussain v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aftar Hussain v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases