Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010025772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/348/2025 MUSTAFA ALI AHMED S/O LATE AZIMUDDIN R/O VILL- TEZPUR, RAJBHARAL P.S. BHOJKHOWA CHAPORI DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM PIN-784027 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. U HAZARIKA,MR H DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 17.02.2025 1. Heard Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by Mustafa Ali Ahmed Page No.# 2/3 in connection with PRC Case No.111/2025, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonitpur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet which is filed in the aforesaid PRC case and therefore he is apprehending that if he appears before the Trial Court he would be detained. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has not yet received summons neither the petitioner is aware as to whether the Trial Court had issued summons or any warrant to the present petitioner. I have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Considering the facts as it appears from the material on record as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that apprehension of getting detained by the Trial Court does not have any basis at this stage. 6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the FIR in this case was filed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, hence there is every likelihood that he would be detained behind the bars once he appears before the trial court also appears to be unfounded and there is no basis for such an apprehension as the petitioner is not yet aware about the nature of process issued by the Trial Court, and there is every likelihood that trial court would be issuing summons at the first instance to the petitioner. 7. This court is of the considered opinion that no apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested in this case. 8. Hence this Anticipatory Bail application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may appear before the Trial Court and may file regular bail application there, if so advised. Page No.# 3/3 JUDGE Comparing Assistant