Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010173072026 2026:GAU-AS:11651 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1138/2026 SHRI RANJIT KHATANIAR SON OF SRI DEBEN KHATANIAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHOTANTA MOHITARA, POLICE STATION- PATACHARKUCHI, POST OFFICE- BHOTANTA MOHITARA, DISTRICT-BAJALI, ASSAM PIN-781325 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:BIKASH KALITA SON OF HIREN KALITA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATHSALA TOWN WARD NO. 3 POST OFFICE- PATHSALA POLICE STATION-PATACHARKUCHI DISTRICT-BAJALI ASSAM PIN-78132 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, U BHARADWAJ,MS. L WANGSA,MS. P KONWAR,MD A RAHMAN,MRS. R S DEURI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 17.08.2026 Heard Ms. L. Wangsa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1. 2. In this petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.03.2026, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bajali, Pathsala, in N.I. Case No. 30/2022. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 19.03.2026, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bajali, Pathsala (‘trial Court’, for short) had issued warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. 4. Ms. Wangsa, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an accused in N.I. Case No. 30/2022 and he was appearing regularly before the learned trial Court in the said case, but on account of his illness on 19.03.2026, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, and that he had also informed his counsel to take step, but no such step was taken by the counsel, for which the learned trial Court had issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Ms. Wangsa, by referring to Annexure-3 at page No. 21 of the petition, submits that the petitioner has been suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Chronic Kidney Disease with High Uric Acid Level and since January, 2026, for which the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court on 19.03.2026, and that the petitioner is ready to face the trial, and therefore, she has contended to recall the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner and allow him to appear before the learned trial Court and to face the trial. Page No.# 3/3 5. Mr. Page No.# 3/3 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1, submits that the petitioner may be allowed to appear before the learned trial Court and face the trial, and till his appearance before the learned trial Court, the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner may be recalled. 6. Having heard the submissions 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 impugned order dated 19.03.2026. 7. It appears that the case was pending at the stage of statement defence and on 19.03.2026, the petitioner remained absent without any step, for which the learned trial Court had issued warrant of arrest against him. However, the medical documents enclosed with the petition indicate that since January, 2026, the petitioner has been suffering from different ailments. Under the given factual scenario, this Court is of the view that a chance may be given to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court and face the trial. 8. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court on or before 28.09.2026, and to apply for regular bail or to allow him remain on previous bail, and on such petition being filed, the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. Till then, the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. 9. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant