Rofiqul Islam vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8262 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Rofiqul Islam vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 3 November, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010201452025




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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2948/2025

            ROFIQUL ISLAM
            S/O ABDUL KADER @ KADER ALI @ ABDUL KADER SHEIKH
            R/O VILL- BALLORCHAR
            P.S. DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:ANAR HUSSAIN
             SON OF LATE ABDUL GONI
            R/O KOLAPANI PART-II
             JORDARPARA
            P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI
            ASSAM
             PIN-783301

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S H SIKDAR, MD IMRAN,ASRAB ALI,MS N J BEGUM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R2)




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                          ORDER

Date : 03.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. S. H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Ms. Page No.# 2/5

M. K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rofiqul Islam who has been detained behind the bars since 04.07.2023 in connection with Special Case No. 180/2023 arising out of Dhubri P.S. Case No. 266/2023 under Sections 365/376DA/306 of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Dhubri.

3. Prior to filing of this bail application, the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion also. However, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, the prayer for bail was rejected at that point of time by order dated 05.02.2025 in Bail Application No. 2823/2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for the last two years and four months. He further submits that one of the co-accused, in the meanwhile, has already been released on bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 3850/2024 by order dated 07.08.2025.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the earlier occasion, the prayer for bail was rejected by this Court, mainly on the ground that two of the material witnesses in the case, namely, Jahangir Alom and Gazi Rahman were not examined at that point of time. However, he submits that the said witnesses have already been examined by the Trial Court and in support of his submission he has produced the deposition of said witnesses before this Court. He further submits that the present petitioner has also taken Page No.# 3/5

an additional ground i.e., non-communication of the ground of arrest at the time of arrest of the present petitioner.

6. He submits that the co-accused, namely, Rofiqul Islam has been released mainly on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to him at the time of his arrest and, therefore, he is also pressing additionally on the same ground for seeking his release on bail in this case. He further submits that there are total 40 prosecution witnesses listed in the charge-sheet and only 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined and it will take much time to examine all the listed witnesses. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed on him while granting bail to him.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail to the present petitioner in this case on the ground that the offence involved in this case is heinous in nature. He further submits that the non-communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner in writing may not be applicable in the case of present petitioner as he was arrested on 04.07.2023 i.e., before the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of " Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India" reported in "(2024) 7 SCC 576".

8. He further submits that in a subsequent judgment i.e., Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement" reported in "(2024) 7 SCC 599", the Apex

Court has clarified that use of word "henceforth" in the judgment of " Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India" (supra) by the Apex Court imply that the requirement

of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing would be prospectively applicable only from the date of judgment in the case of " Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India"

Page No.# 4/5

(supra) i.e., 03.10.2023 and, therefore, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of bail on the said grounds.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2 also submits in similar lines to that of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.

11. It appears that this Court has already released one of the co-accused, namely, Rofiqul Islam on bail on certain terms and conditions. It also appears that the bail of the present petitioner was rejected earlier mainly on the ground that two material witnesses, namely, Jahangir Alom and Gazi Rahman were not examined at that point of time.

12. Further from the documents available before this Court, it appears that those witnesses have already been examined. In addition to that, this Court also has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is languishing behind bars for last two years four months and all the material witnesses have been examined. Hence, if the petitioner co-operates in the trial and abides by the conditions which may be imposed while granting bail to him, his custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. This Court is, therefore, of the consideration that the petitioner is entitled to get bail for the reasons stated above.

13. As the petitioner has already been found entitled to be released on bail on aforesaid ground, this Court refrains itself from discussing the other ground on which bail was sought for by the petitioner, i.e., is non-communication of grounds of arrest.

Page No.# 5/5

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two sureties of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Dhubri with following conditions:-

i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special Case No. 180/2023, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Dhubri;

ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; and

iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner;

15. Any violation of the above conditions would be sufficient ground for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.

16. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant