Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010022052025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./335/2025 RITURAJ CHUTIA S/O LATE GITIK CHUTIA VILL- NO. 2 PURONI MOTAPUNG P.S. BAREKURI DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24-02-2025 Heard Mr. F. Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 24.01.2025 in connection with G.R. Case No. 104/2015. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioner that after getting the order from this Court dated 07.01.2025, the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court below on 20.01.2025 and his engaged counsel also filed a petition on his behalf but subsequently after 4:30 his mobile was not working and then he inadvertently left the Court premises without informing his engaged counsel. However, admitting his guilt he immediately after three days appeared before the learned Trial Court below on 24.01.2025 with a petition for bail but that has been rejected by the learned Trial Court below and since then he is in custody. It is further submitted that the accused/petitioner has no such intention for escaping from the Court premises but due to misunderstanding he left Court premise but he will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court below as and when the date is fixed by the Court. Accordingly he submitted that considering his length of detention already undergone his prayer may be considered. 4. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that from the order passed by the learned Trial Court below dated 20.01.2025, reveals that he escaped from the Court premises and he also put his mobile in switched off mode for which his counsel also could not contact the petitioner as a result of which the NBWA was issued against him. Thus considering the conduct of the accused/petitioner, his prayer may not be considered at this stage. 5. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that vide order dated 07.01.2025 his petition was allowed and NBWA was Page No.# 3/3 issued against him was also suspended considering the ground of absence with a direction to appear before the learned Trial Court below. But, from the order dated 20.01.2025 itself it reveals that he did not abide by the order of the Court and without informing his engaged counsel he left the Court premises and also kept his mobile phone in a switch off mode, for which NBWA had to be issued against him and after he surrendered on 24.01.2025 he was sent to judicial custody. Accordingly, it is sent that considering the conduct of the accused/petitioner, the learned Trial Court passed the order rejecting his prayer for bail. I do not find any irregularity committed by the learned Trial Court below and hence considering the conduct of the accused/petitioner, I do not find it justified to allow this petition at this stage and hence stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant