Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010165462026 2026:GAU-AS:13069 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1108/2026 SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DAS S/O LATE TILAK CHANDRA DAS,WARD NO. 29, NEAR JOGENDRANAGAR RAILWAY STATION,P.O. RENTERS COLONY, P.S. EAST AGARTALA,PIN 799004,DISTRICT WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MS. P BORAH,MR. M ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 08.09.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 582 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging Page No.# 2/7 the impugned Order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Crl.Misc(B) No. 67/2025, whereby the Anticipatory Bail earlier granted to the petitioner vide Order dated 10.04.2025 in Crl. Misc (B) No. 66/2025 was cancelled. 3. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner seeks to invoke the inherit power of this court to interfere with the impugned Order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Crl. Misc(B) No. 67/2025. 4. One Rupan Nath had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Hailakandi Police Station alleging inter-alia that the informant and his friends had been acquainted with the FIR named accused persons for a long time and they had taken around Rs. 34,50,000/- from the informant and his friends for business purpose on various dates but despite assurances, they failed to return their money, and when the informant and his friends went to the house of the accused, the FIR named accused abused them using abusive language and threatened them with dire consequences. The present petitioner was not an FIR named accused and he had preferred an Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of the BNSS before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. Page No.# 3/7 5. Upon Considering the materials available in the Case Diary, the learned Court below did not find sufficient ground for custodial interrogation of the petitioner and by the Order dated 10.04.2025, in Crl.Misc.(B) No. 67/2025 confirmed the interim bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 12.03.2025. Subsequently, the IO of the case filed an application for cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail granted to the petitioner and the learned trial court upon consideration of the material on record passed the impugned order cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner. Although the petitioner was issued notice in the aforesaid application for cancellation, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Court below as recorded in the impugned order. In the application for cancellation of bail, the IO had stated that on 11.04.2025, she went to West Tripura to meet the accused persons but they did not even open the door. They clearly refused to meet the IO and they were called to the local Police Station by the IO but they did not visit the Police Station. After waiting for the whole day, the IO left from Tripura, Agartala. It is further stated by the IO that on 24.04.2025, she served notice to both the accused persons asking them to appear before her on or before 30.04.2025 for interrogation but till the filing of this prayer, the accused person did not appear before the IO. It is stated by the IO that due to the non-cooperation and reluctant behavior of the accused, the investigation of the case has been pending. Therefore, the IO has made the Page No.# 4/7 prayer for cancellation of bail of the accused Subhash Chandra Das. 6. In the impugned order, it was further observed by the learned court as follows: “On 28.05.2025, one Ld. Counsel appeared for the accused person submitted that the accused will fully cooperate with the investigation and due to security issues he could not make himself available before the I.O. Ld. Counsel for the accused prayed for one opportunity to the accused to appear before the I.O. at a safe and suitable place. Accordingly, this Court allowed an opportunity to the accused and directed the I.O. as well as the Ld. Counsel for the accused to inform this Court regarding the further development, i.e., whether the accused has complied with the Court's direction or not. On the next date, i.e., on 05.062025, the accused did not appear before this Court personally and filed the petition stating that due to the ongoing flood situation he could not appear personally before the Court and also prayed that he is willing to cooperate with the I.O. through video conferencing or any other virtual/alternative mode as may be directed. This Court directed the accused to appear before the Court on the next date. However, on 13.06.2025 and 17.06.2025, the accused failed to appear before this Court despite being directed by the Court to appear personally. Thereafter, a report was called for from the IO whether the accused has cooperated with the IO, or not. Report was accordingly submitted by the IO stating that the accused has neither appeared before her nor cooperated with her and therefore, the IO made an ardent prayer before the Court for cancellation of pre-arrest ball granted to the accused. In the instant case, it is seen that following the prayer of the IO for cancellation of bail, sufficient opportunities were granted to the accused to appear before this Court. The accused cannot be allowed to choose any Page No.# 5/7 particular medium for interaction with the IO. This Court even granted the opportunity to the accused to appear before the IO at a safe and suitable place. However, the accused did not comply with the Court's orders. Not only did he fall to appear before the IO but he also failed to appear before this Court personally as directed on many dates.” 7. On a perusal of the TCR (scanned copy), it appears that the petitioner had sent an email to the Officer-in-charge, Hailakandi P.S. stating that he had recently been receiving alarming death threats from unknown callers identifying themselves being from Hailakandi District, Assam, who had warned him against visiting Hailakandi upon threat of abduction and physical assault and in this regard, he had already filed a complaint at the local Police Station. It is further stated in the said email that because of such current threats to his security, the petitioners is in a state of extreme fear and distress and accordingly requested the investigation process to be conducted through video conferencing instead of insisting on his physical appearance. 8. It is not clear from the impugned order whether the learned court while cancelling the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was cognizant of the aforesaid application but as there is no mention of the said communication/email dated 30.04.2026 in the impugned order. Although the IO stated that she had visited the residence of the petitioner at Agartala, there is no material in the TCR in the form of any diary entries or otherwise to confirm such visit. It is also submitted Page No.# 6/7 on behalf of the petitioner that the advocate of the petitioner, on his visit to Hailakandi was intercepted and beaten up. 9. It is true that the petitioner is required to comply with the conditions imposed by the court while granting the privilege of anticipatory bail, but it is equally true that because of the circumstances, it may not be possible for the petitioner to comply with anyone or more of such conditions imposed by the court. In the present case, the petitioner had duly intimated the Police vide his email dated 30.04.2026, which is available on record, regarding his apprehensions and requested for interrogation through video conferencing. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that allowing the impugned order to stand would operate harshly on the petitioner, particularly keeping in view the nature of the material against the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, it is deemed fit to interfere with the said order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction to set aside the same. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Crl.Misc(B) No. 67/2025 is set aside with the further direction that the petitioner may be interrogated at Agartala, Tripura or if the IO so chooses by way of video conferencing with prior Page No.# 7/7 intimation to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner in the event of receipt of any such communication shall ensure his presence for interrogation either physically or video conferencing at Agartala, Tripura. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant