Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010015182025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/84/2025 ADITYA SINGH ALIAS SINGHA S/O LATE DHARMENDER SINGH R/O WARD NO. 2, MASUWAPATH NEAR BONGAIGAON RLY. STATION, P.S. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MS F HUSSAIN,MR. S RAHMAN,MD R ISLAM,MD IMRAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 05.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. M. Abdullah, learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. By way of this application, the applicant i.e. Aditya Singh alias Singha is seeking extension of some more time for his appearance before the Investigating Agency in terms of this Court’s order dated 08.11.2024, passed in AB No. 2664/2024, wherein he was directed to appear before the Investigating Agency within 10 days. 3. It appears that this Court while granting bail to the petitioner by order dated 08.11.2024 in AB No. 2664/2024 issued the following conditions: “i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days, failing which on and from the 11th day, the pre- arrest bail order shall have no force. ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer and iii) The petitioner shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission.” 4. It appears that though the petitioner appeared before the concerned jurisdictional Police Station on 11.11.2024 i.e. within 2(two) days of the order of the bail along with bailor. However, on subsequent dates, he was unable to meet the Investigating Officer and he finally met him on Page No.# 3/4 17.11.2024 and 18.11.2024. 5. It appears that the concerned jurisdictional Police Station has not accepted the bail order in view of the default. 6. Mr. S. M. Abdullah, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant has visited the jurisdictional Police Station on subsequent dates, however, the concerned Investigating Officer was said to have been busy with election duty and therefore, he cannot not be said to have defaulted the condition of bail. He further submits that the applicant may be allowed 10 days time to appear before the jurisdictional Police Station and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer. 7. Per contra, Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that submission made by Mr. S. M. Abdullah, learned Counsel for the appellant as regards the Police Officer being not present on the subsequent dates when the applicant had visited the Police Station is not averred in the body of the interlocutory application. She further submits that there is no ground, whatsoever, for allowing the relief sought for in the interlocutory application and accordingly, she vehemently opposes the prayer made in the interlocutory application. 8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties, and also perused the material available on record. 9. It appears that the appellant though appeared within the 10 days time granted by this Court by order dated 08.11.2024 as a condition for grant of bail, however, on subsequent dates, he had failed to appear before the jurisdictional Investigating Officer. 10. That being so, it is clear that the appellant has not co-operated with the investigation. Paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application is Page No.# 4/4 reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “3. That the petitioner after obtaining the certified copy of the Order dated 08.11.2024 has appeared before the concerned Police Station on 11.11.2024 along with his bailor and on subsequent dates but he was unable to meet the Investigating Officer and when he finally met him on 17.11.2024 and 18.11.2024 he told him that he will accept his bail order after few days and has not accepted the Order till date even after several request.” 11. Reading of the aforesaid averments, it further that the applicant has very casually stated that he was unable to meet the Investigating Officer on subsequent dates. 12. Bail is granted subject to conditions, failure of which entails the cancellation of bail. It is apparent that the applicant was unable to meet the jurisdictional Investigating Officer on subsequent dates. It is also observed that no explanation as regards the applicant being not able to meet or appear before the Investigating Officer on subsequent dates has been averred in paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application. It is observed that the applicant has very casually stated that he was unable to meet the Investigating Officer on subsequent dates. Such casual approach for extension of bail on being default cannot be considered lightly by this Court. 13. That being so, this Court finds no merit in the interlocutory application. As such, the interlocutory application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant