Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010181382026 2026:GAU-AS:12363 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2467/2026 SHEK NAZRUL ALIAS SHAIKH NAZRUL S/O SHEKH ILAI SHAIKH ELAHI, VILLAGE KAMALPARA, P.O. UMARPUR, P.S. BADARPUR, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 27-08-2026 Heard Mr. Sayed Salim Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. KK Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is an accused in Session Case No. 87/2024 pending before the Court of the learned Additional & Sessions Judge (FTC), Sribhumi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been granted bail during the Trial period by Order dated 21.06.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had remained absent without steps during the Trial only on 06.02.2026; a non- bailable warrant of arrest had been issued against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel engaged by the petitioner to represent him at the trial was also unable to attend the Court on 06.02.2026, and consequently, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He has submitted that since he is behind bars for the last 4 months for one occasion of unintentional absence, this Court may consider granting him bail since the petitioner undertakes to participate again in the Trial proceedings as and when dates are fixed. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the records it appears that the petitioner had been granted bail after he appeared after Page No.# 3/4 receiving summons and on 06.02.2026, NBWA were issued. The Petition does not contain the proceedings of the earlier dates to show the presence of the petitioner on the earlier dates. 6. I have considered the submissions made; the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was represented by his counsel on the other dates. The learned counsel has submitted that his petition before the learned Trial Court had been rejected keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has learnt a hard lesson and would not repeat such acts in the future. 7. Having considered the circumstances of the case, I deemed it proper to allow the petitioner the privilege of bail. It is clarified that the learned Trial Court had acted fairly in ordering the custody of the petitioner for remaining absent without showing cause before the ld. Trial Court on 06.02.2026. However, keeping in view the period of detention undergone, the grant of bail is being considered on the assurance that such absence would not be resorted to in the future. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 40,000/- with 2 local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions on the petitioner as may be deemed necessary to ensure participation in the Trial. Page No.# 4/4 9. It is made clear that in the failure of the petitioner to remain personally present on all the dates which will now be fixed by the learned Trial Court for the proceedings, and in the event no reasons are shown for absence, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to recall the privilege of bail afforded to the petitioner. 10. Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant