Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010225132025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2479/2025 ROBIUL HUSSAIN ALIAS ROBIUL ALI SON OF AJGOR ALI, R/O VILLAGE DAMPUR CHAKMA, P.S. HAJO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM PIN-781102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:NIJORA BIBI WIFE OF LATE NUR MOHAMMAD ALI R/O VILL- DAMPUR CHAKMA P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78110 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR A ALAM,MR S HUSSAIN,MR. A S ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S A B KHABIR (R-2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. A. B. Khabir, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Robiul Hussain @ Robiul Ali who has apprehension that he may be detained behind the bars in connection with Sessions Spl. (POCSO) Case No.100/2025 registered under Section 65(1) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in connection with Hajo P. S. Case 18/2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet laid down in the above mentioned case, hence, though, the petitioner has received the summons from the trial court, and as the petitioner has been shown as absconder in the charge-sheet, the trial court may not grant bail to him. 4. He has, therefore, approached this court, seeking anticipatory bail. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No. 2 does not have any objection if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. 6. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though, since only summons have been issued by the trial court, which is competent to consider the application for bail on the appearance of the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner before it, hence, the apprehension of getting arrested or getting detained does not have any basis. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 8. Since the petitioner has received summons from the trial court, it appears that the trial court has not taken any coercive measure to procure the attendance of the petitioner before it. 9. Merely because of the fact that the petitioner’s name has been shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet, it may not be sufficient ground in itself to deny bail to the petitioner, if he complies with the summons issued by the trial court and appears before the trial court on the next date fixed i.e., 18.12.2025. 10. Since the trial court is competent to consider any bail application filed by the petitioner on his appearance, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where any direction under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 may be issued. 11. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the trial court on the next date fixed i.e., 18.12.2025. 12. On his appearance before the trial court, he may file a regular bail application before the trial court if so advised. 13. While considering the bail application, the trial court shall take into consideration the fact that the respondent No. 2 has no objection if bail is granted to the present petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 14. With the above observation, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant