Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010235772025 2025:GAU-AS:14676 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1153/2025 SAJISH ALI S/O- SATIF ALI, VILL- BOR RANGMAHAL, P.S- CHANGSARI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K BORAH, L K BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : AB/1417/2025 MD SAJISH ALI S/O- SATIF ALI VILL- BOR RANGMAHAL P.S- CHANGSARI DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 ------------ Advocate for : MS. G BORAH Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 30-10-2025 Heard Mr. L. K. Borah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking extension of period of interim bail dated 07.08.2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Trial Court with a regular application for bail within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of the order. It is submitted by Mr. Borah, learned counsel that due to wrong advice from the concerned counsel, the petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge with an application for pre-arrest bail and he did not file any regular bail application before the learned Trial Court. Petitioner was however ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court, but due to wrong advice of his engaged counsel, he filed an application for pre-arrest bail, which is accordingly rejected vide order dated 03.10.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that vide order passed in AB No. 1417/2025, the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Page No.# 3/3 Trial Court with an application for regular bail by extending the period of interim protection for 15 (fifteen) days. But, by violating the said terms of the order, he approached the learned Sessions Judge with a fresh application for pre-arrest bail and hence, at the present stage there cannot be any question of extension of period of interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.08.2025. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and all the circumstances of this case, it is seen that the earlier order of interim pre arrest bail is not in existence at present as the petitioner had already approached with a fresh application for pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge and hence, there cannot be any extension of period of interim bail or extension of time as prayed through this interlocutory application. With the above observation and direction, this interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant