Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040006652025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl.)/27/2025 Mustab Ahmed Age: 46 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Moinuddin Ahmed Village and PO Moidumia PS North Lakhimpur District North Lakhimpur Assam 787032 VERSUS The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP ------------ Advocate for : Aso Dalbong Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP: Advocate appearing for respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 12.06.2025 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. T. Page No.# 2/3 Noma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application is filed praying for recall of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in AB No.149 (AP)/2024, whereby, the order dated 23.12.2024 granting interim bail to the petitioner has been recalled. 3. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the applicant submits that although this Court while granting interim bail on 23.12.2024 had directed the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on 31.12.2024, the applicant accused could not appear due to his illness. While referring to the medical prescription issued from one Barnil Poly Clinic & Hospital, Nakari, Ward No.-1, Lakhimpur, submits that petitioner is suffering from certain heart ailment, for which, he could not appear before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, he submits that the order dated 14.02.2025, may be recalled and the applicant may be allowed to go on bail in the event of his arrest. 4. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the accused applicant despite the order of this Court for appearance as a condition of interim bail, he failed to appear and rather evading since the inception. She submits that co-accused(s), who have been granted pre-arrest bail are also not cooperating with the Investigating Officer, violating the conditions of bail as that of the applicant. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail. 5. The accused applicant was granted interim bail vide order dated 23.12.2024 by this Court with a condition, inter alia, that the accused Page No.# 3/3 applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 31.12.2024. 6. When the bail application was listed on 14.02.2025, it was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused applicant despite order of this order has not appeared before the Investigating Officer in violation of the condition of interim bail. On such submission, although the accused applicant had taken the ground that due to his ill health, the accused applicant could not appear as directed by this Court, the interim bail granted to the petitioner dated 23.12.2024, was recalled. 7. The applicant accused has narrated the same old story which he had taken and considered already by this Court, particularly with regard to his ill health. A perusal of the medical prescription shows that Blood Pressure (BP) of the petitioner is 120/80 mmHg and it appears that ailment is related to nausea, which appears to be normal and not any serious illness. Thus, I am not convinced. 8. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the medical prescriptions, I am not inclined to recall the order dated 14.02.2025. 9. Accordingly, interlocutory application stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant