Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010005042025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/90/2025 HAPANTA HEMBROM @ RABIRAM HEMBROM AND 5 ORS S/O- ROBEN HEMBROM VILLAGE-SAMAIJHORA, P.S.-GOSSAINGAON DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM 2: TINKU @ MOHAN TUDU S/O- LT. BIJOY TUDU VILLAGE-BOROBIL P.S.-GOSSAINGAON DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 3: DINESH BASKE S/O-SOM BASKE VILLAGE-BOROBIL P.S.-GOSSAINGAON DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 4: LAL BAKE @ BIHARI @ BABULAL BASKEY S/O- SOTTO BASKE VILLAGE- BOROBIL P.S.-GOSSAIMGAON DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 5: BAILU @ LAKHIRAM KISKU S/O-LATE THAILA KISKU VILLAGE-SAMAIJHORA P.S.-GOSSALMGAON DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 6: BOLEN SOREN S/O- MOTAI SOREN VLLLAGE- SAMAIJHORA P.S.-GOSSAIMGAON DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR ASSA VERSUS Page No.# 2/4 THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, MS. L WANGSA,MS A DAS,MR D S DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 28-01-2025 Heard Mr. T. Deuri, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners in connection with PRC Case No. 109/2019 u/s 143/341/425/427/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Deuri that from the FIR itself it is seen that the FIR was lodged against some unknown persons and the name of the petitioners or the other accused persons are also not named in the FIR. However, subsequently the charge-sheet was filed showing the petitioners as absconders in the charge-sheet. But, during investigation neither the police visited to their residence nor they were called for investigation purpose and hence these petitioners were not aware about any proceeding in any Court. However, after Page No.# 3/4 receiving summons, they came to know about the pendency of this case. All the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court below and face the trial. As the case has been charge-sheeted u/s 307 IPC, they are in apprehension that they might be arrested in connection with this case and hence they filed the present petition seeking some protection so that they can appear before the learned Trial Court below with an appropriate application for bail. 4. Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that vide order dated 06.07.2024, P/A is also issued against one Sanjay Soren who is also shown as absconder in the charge-sheet. 5. Accordingly she insisted to call for the scanned copy of the case record to verify the service of summons etc. to the petitioners. 6. In this context, Mr. Deuri, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as these petitioners were shown as an absconder and the learned Trial Court below had only issued the summons and hence their anticipatory bail is maintainable. In this context, he also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Court reported in AIR 2024 SC (Criminal) 605, Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another and accordingly he emphasized in para 24 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- “4. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to Page No.# 4/4 tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre- arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.” 7. Accordingly, he submitted that there were some other accused/persons were also shown as absconder in the charge-sheet. They subsequently got arrested and enlarged on bail and thereafter, they failed to appear before the learned Trial Court below for which P/A was issued against some of the accused/persons. But, the learned Court below only issued summons against the present accused/petitioners and they are ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court below. 8. Considering the entire submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and other aspects of the matter and also considering the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the petitioners are hereby asked to appear before the learned Trial Court below within 15 days from the date of order with an appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with law. Till then, as an interim measure, no coercive action shall be taken against the present petitioners. 9. With the above observations, the present bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant