Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010185332025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1055/2025 BAJRANG BOTHRA S/O P.C. BOTHRA C/O EPACK PREFAB TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED B13AND14 ECOTECH 1ST EXT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-201308. 2: LAXMI PAT BOTHRA S/O P.C. BOTHRA C/O EPACK PREFAB TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED B13AND14 ECOTECH 1ST EXT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-201308. 3: SANJAY SINGHANIA S/O DEEN DAYAL SINGHANIA C/O EPACK PREFAB TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED B13AND14 ECOTECH 1ST EXT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-201308. 4: AJAY SINGHANIA S/O DEEN DAYAL SINGHANIA C/O EPACK PREFAB TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED B13AND14 ECOTECH 1ST EXT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR Page No.# 2/4 GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-201308. 5: NIKHIL BOTHRA S/O LAXMI PAT BOTHRA C/O EPACK PREFAB TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED B13AND14 ECOTECH 1ST EXT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-201308. 6: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH S/O CHARAN SINGH C/O EPACK PREFAB TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED B13AND14 ECOTECH 1ST EXT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-201308. 7: ROSHAN YADAV S/O RAJENDRA SINGH C/O EPACK PREFAB TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED B13AND14 ECOTECH 1ST EXT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR GREATER NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH-201308. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. V A CHOWDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 18.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. In the main application [AB Case No.1987/2025], the seven petitioners herein were granted pre-arrest bail vide order dated 19.08.2025, while calling for the case diary. 3. In this context, learned senior counsel Mr. A.M. Bora assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while two of the petitioners namely Sunil Kumar Singh and Roshan Yadav have appeared. However, the other five petitioners could not appear due to various reasons – being medical and/or some business related difficulties. 4. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application has been filed seeking 15 days more time to appear in terms of that order of interim bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits and points out to the Court, a note of the I.O available in the case diary - that the petitioner had defaulted in appearance on earlier occasion as well. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in compliance with the order of interim bail, the petitioners will appear. It is further submitted that, along with the five petitioners seeking Page No.# 4/4 extension, the remaining two, who have already appeared, would also appear again. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for interlocutory application is allowed. 8. All the petitioners are given additional 4 (four) weeks time to appear before the I.O and make themselves available for examination. 9. The interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant