Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020008772025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/47/2025 STATE OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS SHRI JAGDISH SINGH S/O SRI DULU SINGH R/O NO.1 BANGALIGAON, P.O. AND P.S - DULIAJAN, DIST- BIBRUGARH, ASSAM- 786602 Advocate for the Petitioner : P.P, NAGALAND, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : AB/5/2025 SRI JAGDISH SINGH S/O SRI DULU SINGH R/O NO.1 BANGALIGAON P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM-786602 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA ------------ Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for : NURUL HASAN Advocate for : P.P NAGALAND appearing for STATE OF NAGALAND BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 01-06-2026 The learned P.P. Mr. Thiba Phom is present. 2. The learned P.P has filed the compliance affidavit regarding notice on the sole respondent. The tracking report shows that the service has been effected on the respondent by successfully delivering the consignment on 25.04.2026. The notice on the sole respondent is therefore deemed to be served. However, none appears for the respondent when the matter is called today. 3. The learned P.P. Mr. Thiba Phom is heard on the in- stant application. 4. The present application has been filed under sec- tion 483(3) BNSS praying for cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail Order dated 28.02.2025 passed in AB 5/2025. 5. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appli- cation is that the accused/respondent had filed AB/5/2025 be- fore this Court and by order dated 11.02.2025, this Court had granted interim pre-arrest bail to the respondent/accused on the condition that the petitioner shall appear before the IO of the Diphupar Police Station Dimapur on or before 25.02.2025 and that the petitioner/accused shall not tamper with the evi- Page No.# 3/7 dence of the investigating agency or the prosecution witness. Thereafter the matter was listed on 28.02.2025 for final hear- ing. On 28.02.2025, when the matter was finally heard, this Court was of the view that the custodial interrogation of the accused/respondent was not required at that stage and there- fore, the interim pre-arrest bail granted on 11.02.2025 was made absolute and the AB/5/2025 was disposed of. There- after, by a notice dated 02.06.2025 under section 35(3) BNSS the respondent/accused was directed to appear before the in- vestigating agency on 15.06.2025 in order to continue with the investigation. However, the respondent/accused did not appear. Another notice was sent to the respondent/accused on 23.06.2025. However, the petitioner still did not appear before the investigating agency. Subsequently, another notice was again issued to the respondent/accused on 21.07.2025. In- spite of several notices issued, the respondent/accused has failed to appear before the investigating agency. 6. The respondent/accused had also filed a criminal petition registered as Crl.Pet.1/2025. By an order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Crl.Pet.1/2025, this Court had observed that the respondent/accused was directed to appear before the I.O but he had failed to do so in compliance of the order of this Court dated 24.11.2025 passed in Crl.Pet.1/2025. The counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that the peti- tioner/accused was suffering from Melena and because of his ailment he could not appear physically before the I.O and that he is now ready to extend his cooperation with the I.O. This Court had, therefore, imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the Page No.# 4/7 petitioner/accused to be paid to the complainant. This Court also gave liberty to the P.P to file an application for cancella- tion of the anticipatory bail if the accused fails to cooperate with the investigation. The Crl.Pet.1/2025 has been finally dis- missed by this Court by an order dated 10.02.2026. Therefore, learned PP submits that in order to continue with the investi- gation the presence of the respondent/accused is necessary. However, under the protection of the anticipatory bail order dated 28.02.2025, the respondent/accused has failed to ap- pear before the investigating agency and the investigation is unable to progress any further due to the failure of the re- spondent/accused to appear before the IO of the case. 7. Learned PP has further submitted that the investi- gating agency on several occasions has tried to contact the re- spondent/accused over the phone also but he is not respon- sive and does not receive the calls any further. The learned PP has relied on the case of:- (i) Vipan Kumar Dhir vs State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518 and (ii) CBI vs Subramani Gopalkrishna & Anr, (2011) 5 SCC 296 in support of his submissions. 8. In view of the averments made hereinabove, learned PP has prayed that the anticipatory bail order dated 28.02.2025 passed in the AB.5/2025 may be cancelled/re- voked in the interest of justice. 9. The instant application was filed on 10.12.2025. Thereafter, the applicant has taken steps for service on the re- spondent through Speed Post. However, the same had re- Page No.# 5/7 turned unserved and therefore, by an order dated 19.02.2026 the learned PP was given another opportunity to take fresh steps for notice on the respondent. Subsequently, the learned PP took fresh steps on the respondent by way of Speed Post. Learned PP also took steps for notice on the respondent through the Dhuliajan Police Station, Assam. Subsequently, the applicant has filed a compliance affidavit showing the service of notice on the respondent through Speed Post taken by the Dhuliajan Police Station and the tracking report shows that the delivery has been successful on 25.04.2026. Inspite of due service of notice, the respondent has failed to appear before this Court and the matter is therefore, heard in his absence. 10. It is seen from the records that the accused/re- spondent had preferred the anticipatory bail application regis- tered as AB 5/2025. The accused/respondent was granted an interim protection by this Court on 11.02.2025 and thereafter the interim order was made absolute and the AB 5/2025 was disposed of by this Court on 28.02.2025. Thereafter, the re- spondent/accused filed the Crl.Pet 1/2025 praying for quash- ing of the FIR and the proceedings against him. On 24.11.2025, this Court in Crl.Pet 1/2025 directed the accused/respondent to appear physically on 03.12.2025 at 1.00 PM before the I.O. but he did not comply with the order of this Court. During the pendency of Crl.Pet 1/2025, the I.O had issued several notices to the respondent to appear physi- cally vide Notices dated 02.06.2025, 23.06.2025 and 21.07.2025. However, the respondent failed to appear before the investigating agency. In fact during the pendency of the Page No.# 6/7 Crl.Pet 1/2025 this Court had accorded sufficient opportunities to the respondent to appear before the investigating agency in its various orders dated 29.08.2025, 23.09.2025, 13.10.2025 and 23.10.2025. However by making various excuses of health issues, the respondent failed to appear before the I.O. There- fore by an order dated 24.11.2025, this Court in Crl.Pet.1/2025 granted one last opportunity to the respondent to appear before the I.O on 03.12.2025 at 1.00 PM failing which cost shall be imposed and necessary orders shall be passed. Therefore, by order dated 08.12.2025, this Court had imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent as he failed to comply with the direction of this Court. 11. I have also taken note of the fact that Crl.Pet.1/2025 has finally been dismissed on 10.02.2026. In view of the dismissal of the Crl.Pet.1/2025, the respondent/ac- cused has a bounden duty to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating agency as and when sum- moned. However, it is seen that the respondent by taking ad- vantage of the anticipatory bail passed on 28.02.2025 has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency and has been absconding. The conduct of the respondent during the pen- dency of Crl.Pet.1/2025 has also been noted by this Court inasmuch as inspite of the direction of this Court to appear be- fore the I.O on several occasions, the respondent failed to ap- pear on some pretext or the other. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Vipan Kumar Dhir (supra) held that there can be supervening circum- stances, which may develop post the grant of bail and are Page No.# 7/7 non-conducive to fair trial making it necessary to cancel the bail. Also in the case of CBI vs Subramani(supra); it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justify- ing the cancellation of bail. 13. It is the view of this Court that the respondent ac- cused has misused the liberty granted by this Court by failing to appear when required and he is evading the investigation. 14. From the conduct of the respondent/accused and the supervening circumstances this Court is of the view that the respondent has failed to comply with the orders of this Court and he is absconding and has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency. Accordingly anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused by order dated 28.02.2025 in AB 5/2025 is cancelled. 15. The application stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant