Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010191882025 2025:GAU-AS:11593 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1052/2025 TOBA NYORI @ TAO ORIYE SON OF SRI MARTO ORIYE 2 MARTO NYORI RESIDENT OF PALE ADI BASTI P.S. AND LIKABALI, DIST. WEST SIANG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 29-08-2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard R.R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application u/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for setting aside and quash the impugned order dated 28.12.2022 and its subsequent orders whereby the learned Trial Court has issued Non- bailable warrant of arrest and order dated 17.05.2024 and its subsequent orders whereby the learned Trial Court issued P&A against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Gogoi that the present accused/petitioner was shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet. But, he was not aware about the pendency of this case and police never searched for him during the investigation. Further, he submitted that no summons were received personally by the accused/petitioner and without considering this aspect, the NBWA was issued against the petitioner and finally the P&A is also issued against him. However, he is ready and willing to contest the case by appearing before the learned Trial Court below, if some interim protection is provided to him. He further submitted that from the charge-sheet itself it is seen that he was searched by police only after 6 months of lodging of the FIR and there was no such attempt made by the I/O during the investigation. 4. Mr. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the Annexures as well as the Order Sheets it also reveals that initially the summons were issued to the accused/petitioner but it returned unexecuted. Considering the delay in this case, P&A was issued on the basis of the report submitted by the Executing Officer. Mr. Kaushik submitted that no illegality was committed by the learned Court below while issuing the NBWA as well as P&A against the present petitioner. So, at this stage there may not be any order of interim protection for the present accused/petitioner. 5. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Annexures filed along with the petition. Page No.# 3/3 From the record itself it is seen that the accused was shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet and after issuance of summons on several times, the NBWA had to be issued by the learned Court below and it also reveals that the NBWA were issued since 28.12.2022 and in spite of several attempt made by the Court, the petitioner could not be apprehended and finding no other alternative, the order of issuance of P&A had to be passed by the learned Court below. Further, from the charge-sheet it is seen that the I/O has also made several attempts to apprehend the accused/petitioner during the investigation. But, it is seen that he was avoiding police appearance and not cooperated in the investigation of this case. 6. Considering the conduct of the present petitioner, I do not find it justified to provide any interim protection in the present case and there no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court below with an appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, this criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant