Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010254972025 2025:GAU-AS:15639 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1431/2025 SURENDRA KUMAR NATH AND ANR D/O LATE SUKDEV NAMASUDRAW/O SRI. DILU NAMASUDRAR/O VILL.- NO. 1 DEBENDRA NAGAR, P.S. SILAPATHAR, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM 2: ANIL KUMAR NATH S/OLATE ROMA KANTA NATH R/O VILL- PUB- GUUMARI P.O. GUIMARI P.S. KAMPUR DIST. NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DEWRI, MR A DEKA,MR H BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 19.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. K. Handique, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. Both the petitioners are facing trial in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara in respect of PRC Case No.15/2021. 3. On 04.11.2025, both the petitioners were absent in the Court and one prosecution witness had also appeared for examination. Since the petitioners were absent without steps, the witness could not be examined and had to be sent back. The Trial Court has recorded that the petitioners have been absent for long time and on previous dates they were represented by their lawyer but, on 04.11.2025, the petitioners were not represented by any lawyer. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Trial Court issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against both the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner, Surrendra Kumar Nath is aged about 81 years old and the petitioner Anil Kumar Nath is aged about 60 years old. Both have been suffering from certain ailments, due to which they were absent on earlier dates, although their lawyer had represented them on each date. 6. On 04.11.2025, they could not appear because their lawyer did not inform them of the date. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 8. Remaining absent for a long time, without facing trial is not acceptable. On 04.11.2025, one witness had to be sent back for absence of the petitioners. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners deserve some relief as prayed for. Page No.# 3/3 10. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall be recalled subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost, if the payment is made, the amount shall be paid to the witness, Banamali Das, wherever he appears in the Court to be examined by prosecution and to be cross- examined by the defendants. 11. With the aforesaid direction, this Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant