Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010166662025 2025:GAU-AS:9789 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2418/2025 TOMIJ ALI S/O ASAN ALI VILL- KALARDIA (BARAMARA) P.S. BHANGNAMARI DIST. NALBARI,A SSAM PIN-781311. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S ISLAM, MR. R ISLAM,S RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 30.07.2025 Heard S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 04.07.2025 in connection with Session Case No. 71/2024 arising out of Mukalmua P. S. Case No. 540/2023, under Section 379/413 of IPC. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present petitioner was earlier arrested and granted bail prior to the filing of the charge sheet. After the filing of the charge sheet, he continued to appear regularly before the learned Trial Court. However, on certain occasions, he could not appear personally and was represented through his engaged counsel. On 18.03.2025, a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by the Court, and a Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) was issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the learned Trial Court with an application for recalling the NBWA issued against him. However, by an order dated 04.07.2025, the said application was rejected, and since then, he has been in custody. He again applied for regular bail before the learned Trial Court on 18.07.2025, which was also rejected. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking bail. 4. He further submits that the accused/petitioner did not default in Page No.# 3/4 appearance intentionally, but was unable to appear on the fixed date due to illness. Nevertheless, he is ready and willing to contest the case and to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed, if granted the privilege of bail. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that although the accused/petitioner was appearing through his engaged counsel, his personal absence delayed the framing of charge and led to delays in the proceedings. Therefore, considering his conduct, the learned Sessions Judge rightly issued the NBWA. She further submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the learned Trial Court and file a regular bail application, which may be considered in accordance with law. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case record, especially the order sheets annexed with the petition. It is evident that the accused/petitioner was appearing before the learned Trial Court through his counsel after the filing of the charge sheet and committal of the case. However, he failed to appear personally on several occasions, leading to the dismissal of his petition on 18.03.2025 and the issuance of an NBWA. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared with an application dated 04.07.2025 for recalling the NBWA, which was rejected. From the order sheets annexed with the petition, it appears that the Trial Court rejected or dismissed the petitions considering the conduct of the accused/petitioner and the delay in the disposal of the case caused by his absence. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the petitioner’s prior conduct and the length of his detention (26 days), I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner does not seems to be necessary in this case. Page No.# 4/4 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, the accused/petitioner, namely, Tomij Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, as and when the date is fixed; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant