Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010191852026 2026:GAU-AS:13458 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1262/2026 SRI SAURAV DUTTA SON OF SRI JIBAN KUMAR DUTTA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARIJA KAWAR DARA JOREPATKI MATHABHANGA PO KAWARDARA DISTRICT COOCH BEHAR WEST BENGAL 736146 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM 2:SMTI BANDITA PAUL DAUGHTER OF GOPINATH PAUL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ROAWMARI PS CHAPAR DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORAH, MRS K M SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State Page No.# 2/3 respondent No.1. 2. In this petition under Section 528 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.06.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the present petitioner after rejection of the Petition No.369/2025, filed by the petitioner on 09.06.2025, and he also challenged the orders dated 18.07.2025, 16.10.2025, 08.12.2025, 20.02.2026, 28.04.2026, 04.07.2026 and 27.08.2026, whereby the learned Trial Court has also directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. 3. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in Sessions Case No.21/2023, pending before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. Mr. Borah further submits that the petitioner has been suffering from mental disease and also some other diseases, for which he has been undergoing treatment at Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental health, Tezpur and also he has been undergoing treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, for which he could not appear before the learned Trial Court on 09.06.2025, and filed a petition, being Petition No.369/2025, but the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the same and directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Borah further submits that the petitioner is ready to face trial and will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date and on such count, the impugned order, dated 09.06.2025, and all subsequent orders, by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, may be quashed and the petitioner may be allowed to appear before the learned Trial Court and to face trial. 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional P.P., however, pointed it out that on account of failing to appear before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court has discharged Page No.# 3/3 the bailor after forfeiting the bail amount. However, he submits that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the learned Trial Court and to apply for regular bail. 6. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, specially the medical documents enclosed with the present petition, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 7. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court and to apply for regular bail on or before 08.10.2026, and in the event of filing such an application, the learned Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. Till then, the impugned order, dated 09.06.2025, and all subsequent orders, by which non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the present petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance. 8. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE