Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010091582026 2026:GAU-AS:11648 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./259/2026 ALI AHMED S/O MD BASIRUDDIN AHMED, R/O VILL PACHIM DEOSUNGA, AMBARISH NAGAR, PS GORESWAR, DIST TAMULPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. I HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 17.08.2026 Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. In this petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.03.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 13.03.2026, the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner as well as his bailors in Petition Nos.637/2026 and 638/2026 from dispensing their personal appearances on each and every Monday and Friday. 3. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the accused in the Special WL(P) Case No.12/2018 and in the said case, the petitioner, namely, Ali Ahmed was an accused and he was convicted by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred one Criminal Appeal, No.284/2025, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 13.06.2025 and the said appeal was also admitted for hearing and in the said criminal appeal, the petitioner herein filed one interlocutory application, which was registered as I.A.(Crl.) No.808/2025 and while disposing of the said interlocutory application, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur, on all Mondays and Fridays till disposal of the criminal appeal pending before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed bail bonds before the learned Sessions Judge and vide order dated 18.12.2025, while accepting the bail bonds, the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, vide order dated 18.12.2025 has directed the bailors of the petitioner to produce the accused person before the Court on every Monday and Friday. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2025 in I.A.(Crl.) No.808/2025, has never directed the bailors to produce the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa. But, in spite of absence of such direction, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the bailors to produce the petitioner before it on every Monday and Friday. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed two applications, being Petition Nos.637/2026 and 638/2026, for dispensing with the personal appearance of the bailors on every Monday and Friday. But, vide impugned order, dated 13.03.2026, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed these petitions on the ground that this Court in I.A.(Crl.) No.808/2025, vide order dated Page No.# 3/4 11.12.2025, has directed the accused person to appear before the Court on each and every Monday and Friday and as such, the prayer made by the bailors is beyond the jurisdiction, as the order is passed by this Court and accordingly, dismissed the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, as there is no such direction in the order dated 11.12.2025, passed in I.A.(Crl.) No.808/2025 and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition by dispensing with the appearance of the bailors before the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, on every Money and Friday. 5. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife, Assam, appearing for the State respondent, has fairly submitted that in the order dated 11.12.2025, this Court in I.A.(Crl.) No.808/2025, has never directed the bailors to produce the petitioner before the Court, instead only the accused person is directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and as such, the impugned order, according to Mr. Sharma is illegal. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.(Crl.) No.808/2025, and also also the order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa and also the impugned order dated 13.03.2026. 7. Indisputably, in the order dated 11.12.2025, no direction was issued to the bailors to produce the accused person/petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa. Further, vide order dated 11.12.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has never granted any liberty to the learned Sessions Judge to impose any other condition. And in that view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 13.03.2026, directing the bailors to produce the accused person/petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, on each and every Monday and Friday is illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. And accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. However, the petitioner herein shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, on each and every Monday as per the direction of this Court in the order dated 11.12.2025 in I.A.(Crl.) No.808/2025. Page No.# 4/4 9. In terms of above, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE