Gauhati High Court
Sri Johirul 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./3112/2025
SRI JOHIRUL ISLAM
S/O- SUMAR ALI @ SHUMAR ALI
R/O- VILL.- KOLAPAKANI PART-II
KHAPARA
PATAMARI
P.O. DHUBRI
AND P.S. DHUBRI (SADAR)
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783324.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
2:SRI ANAR HUSSAIN (INFORMANT)
S/O- LATE ABDUL GONI
R/O- VILL.- KOLAPAKANI PART-II KHAPARA
P.O.- DHUBRI
AND P.S-. DHUBRI (SADAR)
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN -783323
------------
Advocate for : MR. A A R KARIM
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 03.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. A. A. R. Karim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Ms.
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, Johirul Islam who has been detained behind the bars since
02.07.2023 in connection with Special Case No. 180/2023 corresponding to
Dhubri P.S. Case No. 266/2023 under Sections 365/376DA/306/34 of IPC read
with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 30.06.2023, the father of
the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the In-charge of Bazar Nagar Police
Outpost under Dhubri Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that his minor daughter
on 29.06.2023 at around 1 p.m., had accompanied three of her friends and
went to visit Fulbari Bridge. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons
named in the FIR, including the present petitioner offered lift to them on bike
for dropping them in their respective homes. However, they took the victim to
Aminer Char and she was raped by accused Johirul Islam and on the same day,
the daughter of the informant committed suicide.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been languishing behind the bars since 04.07.2023 and he is not
the main accused. He submits that the allegation against him is of abetting the
offence alleged in this case. He further submits that the main accused Rofiqul
Islam has already been granted by this Court. He also submits that the grounds
Page No.# 3/5
of arrest were not communicated to the present petitioner at the time of his
arrest and, therefore, there is violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India as well as Section 50 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the
petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial and also ready to abide by any
condition imposed by the Court while granting bail to him.
5. 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
02.07.2023 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".
6. 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"
(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.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2 also
submits in similar lines to that of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.
Page No.# 4/5
9. The present petitioner is languishing behind the bars since 04.07.2023
(for last two years and four months). Though, the accusation made against him
is grave, however, already seventeen prosecution witnesses including the
material witnesses and total forty listed prosecution witnesses are there, hence,
the trial is unlikely to culminate very soon.
10. Further, in the meanwhile, two of the co-accused, namely, Rofiqul Islam
and Rofiqul Islam (second) have already been granted bail by this Court.
11. Hence, considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant bail to
the above named petitioner on the condition that he shall abide by the condition
imposed by this Court while granting bail to him.
12. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraph, 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;
Page No.# 5/5
13. Any violation of the above conditions would be sufficient ground for
cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.
14. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
