Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010163332025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1750/2025 NUR UDDIN SON OF ABDUL MALEK A RESIDENT OF VILL- UDALI BAZAR, P.O. LANKA, PS. LANKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782446. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:FAKRUL ISLAM S/O JAMALUDDIN A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- KACHARIGAON P.S. LANKA P.O. LANKA DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PH. NO. 9101502288 Advocate for the Petitioner : TAWHID LASKAR, MS AHMED,ASHRAFUL BORBHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nur Uddin, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Lanka P.S. Case No. 75/2023 corresponding to Special (POCSO) Case No. Page No.# 2/2 126/2024 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hojai. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet, though he has received summons from the Trial Court he is apprehending his arrest in the event he appears before the Trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as the Court which had issued summons to the petitioner is competent enough to consider and grant bail to the petitioner, this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as there is no legal apprehension of him getting arrested in the event he appears before the Trial Court. 5. This Court agrees with the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. The Trial Court has only issued summons to the petitioner. It also appears that the Trial Court is the Court of Additional Sessions-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, who is competent enough to consider and grant bail to the petitioner if it thinks fit to do so. 7. There is no embargo on the part of the said Court in granting bail to the petitioner. 8. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that there is no apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested in the aforesaid case justifying grant of anticipatory bail to him at this stage. 9. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant