Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030004912025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/6/2025 Smt. Lalnunziri @ Khana Tochhawng W/o Sh Lalhuapzauva R/o H.No. 10/6 Hateena Street Nof Hagaiil, Israel Presently stationed at Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Smt. Ethel Lalruatdiki D/o R. Zathangpuia R/o ITI Veng, Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr F Lalengliana. Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 07.08.2025 Heard Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Bail Application No. 416/2025 in connection with the Criminal Complaint No. Page No.# 2/5 597/2024. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was arrested in pursuant to the complaint filed by the complainant on 05.12.2024 by which the complainant had leveled various allegations against the accused person who is the husband of the complainant. In the complaint, it was stated that the accused person married the complainant on 01.03.2023 and the said marriage was registered under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1954). The marriage was solemnized while the respondent was in Mizoram on a long vacation and the marriage was also registered in presence of three witnesses and a marriage certificate was issued. However, the complainant stated in the complaint that after one week of the marriage, the respondent went back to Israel with a promise that he would come back soon to take the complainant to Israel. But she said that after reaching Israel, respondent went back on his promise and informed the complainant that it was not possible for him to take her to Israel due to some difficulties and that he advised her to start a business in which he promised to help her and that in the meantime, he would search ways to take her back. 4. The complainant states that on being assured, she availed a loan of Rs. 800,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) from Mizoram Rural Bank with interest @ 10% per annum. However, in the month of July, 2024, the complainant got the knowledge that the respondent i.e. her husband is engaged to get married to another person in Israel. She being aggrieved, tried to contact the respondent as well as the parents, but it was stated that none of them Page No.# 3/5 had divulged the real fact to the complainant and that on 17.07.2024, the respondent contacted her and admitted his guilt and tendered his apology and promised her that since the loan amount was availed by her or his advice, he would keep helping her. 5. The complainant thereafter stated that the respondent subsequently married another lady without nullifying the first marriage with her. She then stated that she tried to contact the family members of the respondent and the said family members told her, to let go the issue by further telling her that she would not get any relief as they had already change their citizenship. She as such had prayed in the said complaint petition that the respondent may be convicted and sentenced under Section 82 of the BNSS and also for a direction to pay her an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakhs) and also for an order nullifying her marriage with the respondent. 6. It is noticed that the allegations in the said complaint petition were only against the husband. The only allegation against the family members of the respondent was only to the effect that firstly, the family members did not disclose the real facts to the complainant and secondly, the family members requested her to let go the issue of marriage with the respondent by telling her further that she would not get any relief from the Court since they have change their citizenship. The allegations are against the family members of the respondent and not specifically against his mother i.e. the petitioner. 7. During the proceedings, in respect of the said complaint petition, a Page No.# 4/5 submission is made by the complainant to summon the mother of the respondent as well apart from proceedings against the respondent i.e. her husband and on the said submission, the Trial Court had issued summon to the mother of the respondent to which the mother i.e. the petitioner did not appear and non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. 8. Thereafter, on the strength of the non-bailable warrant of arrest, the petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2025 and since then, the petitioner is detained in judicial custody. 9. On 04.07.2025, a bail application was filed by the petitioner before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-V, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram and the said application was heard on 14.07.2025 and the order was reserved and it is the case of the petitioner that till date, the order has not been delivered. 10. It is stated here that as of today, more than three weeks have elapsed from the date of reserving the order in the said bail application. 11. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many decisions, one of them been Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 by which the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed by taking into account the other decisions that High Court may issue directions to subordinate Courts and that the bail application should be disposed of normally within one week. The said direction is reproduced herein below:- Page No.# 5/5 “29. To sum up: 29.1. The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that: 29.1.1. Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week.” 12. Since it is seen that it is not one week but more than three weeks have elapsed from the date of reserving the order, this Court deems it fit that the Trial Court i.e. the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-V, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram should consider disposing of the bail application as soon as possible without any unnecessary delay. 13. In this petition, although the complainant is made a party respondent, but the instant application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions in view of the fact that since there has been already a delay in disposing of the bail application by the Trial Court which is deprecated by the Apex Court, issuing notice would further delay the same and further since non-disposal of bail application is in the teeth of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction, the instant application is taken up for final disposal. 14. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this petition is disposed of with the above directions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant