Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010062542025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/860/2025 MOJIBOR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O LATE ABED ALI R/O JORSHIULI P.S.GORAIARI PIN-781137, DIST.KAMRUP, ASSAM PH. NO. 6000781892 2: AKABBAR ALI S/O LT ABED ALI R/O JORSHIMULI PS GORIMARI PIN 781137 DIST KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:KUDDUS ALI S/O KALU MIA R/O KANHARA PS GORAIMARI DIST KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DUBEY, MS. M DAIMARY,MS M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 05.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Mojibor Rahman and (2) Akabbar Ali, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 01/2025, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup under Section 87/64/3(5) of the BNS, read with Section 6 of the POSCO Act, 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest. 4. He also submits that in the meanwhile, the informant, i.e. the father-in-law has filed an affidavit, inter alia stating that he has no objection, if the petitioners are granted bail in connection with the aforesaid case. 5. On perusal of the record, it appears that on an earlier occasions, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. At that point of time, the Trial Court had only issued Page No.# 3/3 summons against the present petitioners. However, by order dated 03.03.2025, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected at that point of time by this Court, by observing that there is no apprehension of petitioners getting arrested, as the Trial Court had issued only summons against them. 6. Now, the petitioners after failing to appear before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against them and therefore, they are apprehending their arrest. 7. Though an apprehension of getting arrested is there of both the petitioners, however, the materials on record shows that it is because of their own fault that they are facing such situation, as they have failed to appear before the Trial Court, when summons were issued. Now, the appropriate course which is open to the petitioners is to appear before the Trial Court and pray for bail before the said Court. 8. This anticipatory bail application is, therefore, rejected with an observation that the petitioners may appear before the Trail Court and may pray for regular bail before the said Court, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant