Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010172162026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1980/2026 HARUN ALI @ MD HARUN MIAH S/O JOYNAL ABEDIN R/O VILLAGE MOYNABANDHA, P.S. SOUTH SALMARA, DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 783135 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:AZIZUR RAHMAN S/O HESGAR ALI VILL- RAMBHIMARAPA P.S. MANKACHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Pararasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the state respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking pre- arrest bail to the petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Special (P) Case No. 184/2024, registered under Sections 366(A)/ 344 of IPC and subsequently, Section 376 (3) IPC, read with Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, pending before the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 424/2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the summons from the Trial Court had been served upon the father of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner being an illiterate person and did not inform the petitioner about the pendency of trial of the case against him. Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court on any of the occasions when the matter had been taken up. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to his absence in the Trial Court, Non- Bailable Warrant of Arrest had been issued against him on the basis of the service of summon served upon the father of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that later on the P&A had also been issued against the petitioner. The order dated 26.05.2026 reflects that the NBWA was required to be again issued at proper addresses. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that the appearance of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court would help the court in the early disposal of the trial of the case. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on or before, on or before 10.09.2026 and on his appearance, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Page No.# 3/3 5. This court has also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation leveled against him in the FIR is that during his ill advice, the accused No. 1 had committed acts which are punishable under the POCSO Act. 6. The learned APP has submitted that non bailable warrant of arrest would remain in existence, even if the anticipatory bail is granted by this court at this stage, since they cannot be interfered with in a bail petition. 7. We leave it to the petitioner to take such remedial measures as may be available to him in law with regard to the non-bailable warrants and process issued against him. 8. The bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant