Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020007372025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./37/2025 SHRI ANURAG KUMAR CHAUDHARY SON OF DEVINDRA SINGH, R/O SECTOR 14, ASHOKA SOCIETY HOUSE NO. 5/14A, VASUNDHARA GHAZIABAD-201012 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR KOHIMA NAGALAND 2:MR. TINUWATI SON OF TEMJENHONGBA CARE OF JAMIR GAS AGENCY PURANA BAJAR KUSHIABILL SECTOR 4 DIST. DIMAPUR NAGALAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Mishara, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T. B. Jamir, Advocate : Ms. Livika V. Sumi, Government Advocate BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 18.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. Livika V. Sumi, the learned Government Advocate appearing Page No.# 2/4 on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. T. B. Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 2. The present proceedings have been filed assailing the order dated 09.10.2025 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur in G.R. Case No. 412/2025 arising out of East P.S. Case No.133/2025 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code whereby a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur against the Petitioner. 3. The basis on which the instant application has been filed is that the Petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR in Criminal Petition No.38/2025. Today, vide a separate judgment, this Court has rejected the said application. 4. Mr. R. S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner may be given some time for filing an appropriate application before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail and till that time, the Petitioner may be protected inasmuch as there was an interim order. Page No.# 3/4 5. Considering the above, as the instant application was dependent upon the adjudication in Criminal Petition No.38/2025 which was dismissed today, the challenge to the order dated 09.10.2025 cannot be sustained in law, more particularly in view of the production of the case status report which shows that the Petitioner was issued various summons to appear. 6. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 09.10.2025 for which the instant petition stands dismissed. 7. However, before parting with the records, this Court further finds it pertinent to observe that there was an interim order and the Petitioner has a right to file appropriate application seeking Anticipatory Bail. 8. Considering the above, this Court observes that the interim order which was passed by the learned Coordinate Bench dated 07.11.2025 stands extended till 09.10.2026. In the meantime, the Petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate application, if so advised. 9. It is further observed that on and from 10th of Page No.# 4/4 October, 2026, the protection extended by this order shall no longer continue. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant