Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118502025 2025:GAU-AS:10606-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1782/2025 MAJIBAR RAHMAN S/O- SURAT ALI, VILL- SILGHAGRI PT-I, P.O. HOWRARPAR, P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECY. NIRBACHAN BHAWAN NEW DELHI-01 4:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY-05 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) Page No.# 2/3 DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, H A AHMED,MR A S SK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, ELECTION COMMISSION.,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 11.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the FT matters and NRC; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate for respondent. 2. This is an application by which the applicant, who is the petitioner in connected writ petition, i.e, WP(C) 6465/2022, praying for extension of time granted by order dated 30.09.2022 in the said WP(C) 6465/2022, for appearing before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri and to take bail. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the statements made in paragraph no. 3 of this interlocutory application project that the applicant comes from a poor strata of the society and is working as a Mason in different States. It is projected that after filing of the said writ petition, the applicant had gone out to Delhi for work and he came back only in February, 2025. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during these days the applicant could not contact his engaged counsel and due communication gap he was not aware of his requirement to appear before the Page No.# 3/3 Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, within the time allowed to take bail. 4. The prayer so made in this application is opposed by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters. 5. Having filed a writ petition wherein interim prayer for bail was made and the same having been allowed, it was duty cast on the applicant to comply with the terms and conditions of bail which was granted by order dated 30.09.2022, passed in said WP(C)/6465/2022. The explanation that the applicant, in connection with his work as a Mason had left for Delhi after filing of the writ petition and came back only in February, 2025 is absolutely vague and does not inspire confidence of the Court on the statements made. If such statement as made in this writ petition is accepted, then the applicant did not make any endeavour to contact his learned counsel and thus, disregarded the order of the Court for almost 3 (three) years. 6. Therefore, in this case the applicant is found to be guilty of delay and latches in not taking bail in terms of the order dated 30.09.2022, passed in WP(C)/6465/2022. 7. Accordingly, prayer for extension of time for the applicant to take bail in terms of the said order is rejected. 8. Resultantly, this interlocutory application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant