Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010247812025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2686/2025 AKTAR HUSSAIN AKAND AND 4 ORS. S/O AMINUL ISLAM AKAND R/O VILL- BORO KAZIRGAON P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM 2: SANU SHEIKH S/O AMJAD HUSSAIN R/O VILL- BORO KAZIRGAON P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 3: ABU SHEIKH S/O ABDUL KAYUM R/O VILL- BORO KAZIRGAON P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 4: SOPIOR RAHMAN S/O MOFUJOL HOQUE R/O VILL- BORO KAZIRGAON P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM 5: RUMON SHEIKH S/O SOPIOR RAHMAN R/O VILL- BORO KAZIRGAON P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSA Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S U AHMED, A R MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 14.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. U. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Aktar Hussain Akand @ Akter Hussain, (2) Sanu Sheikh, (3) Abu Sheikh, (4) Sopior Rahman, and (5) Rumon Sheikh, who are apprehending that they may be remanded to custody in connection with PRC Case No. 342/2025 arising Sukchar P. S. Case No. 26/2025 under Sections 191(2)/191(3)/190/329(4)/329(3)/ 118(2)/117(2)/109 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since charge-sheet has been laid in the aforesaid PRC Case No. 342/2025, showing the petitioners as absconder therein, the petitioners apprehends that on their appearance before the trial Page No.# 3/4 they may be remanded to custody. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since same have already issued by the trial court there is apprehension of petitioners getting arrested in this case. 5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record since the offences under which charge-sheet has been laid against the present petitioners does entail punishment of imprisonment more than 10 years. 6. Hence there is no embargo on the part of the court which has issued summons to grant bail to the petitioners. Even though, the petitioners’ name have been shown in the charge sheet as absconders, however since, the trial court has issued only summons to them there is no apprehension of the petitioners getting arrested as no coercive processes have issued against the present petitioners. 7. This court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner appears before the trial court and prays for bail before the said court, the trial court is competent enough to consider and to grant bail to the petitioners if it deems to do so. 8. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that there is no apprehension of the petitioners getting arrested in this case as of now. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court and pray for regular bail on their appearance before the trial court, if so advised. Page No.# 4/4 9. This anticipatory bail is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant