Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010061442026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./155/2026 FAZAL AHMED S/O LATE A BAD UDDIN R/O VILL- BADEJAMA, P.O. BARAIGRAM, P.S. PATHARKANDI, IN THE DISTRICT OF KARIMGANJ (NOW SRIBHUMI), ASSAM, PRESENT ADDRESS- HOUSE NO. 27, ARUHAN PATH, NORTH SARANIA, P.S. CHANDMARI, P.O. SILPUKHURI, KAMRUP (M), DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-781003. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SAHARA KHANAM D/O JALAL UDDIN W/O HIJAB UDDIN R/O VILL- BADEJAMA P.S. PATHARKANDI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78872 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA, MR. K ISLAM,MR A RASHID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 26.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel Mr. T.H. Hazarika appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), Sribhumi in G.R. Case No.1251/2023 (PRC No.90/2024). 3. The petitioner is an accused. He had earlier filed a criminal petition before this Court being Criminal Petition No.1616/2025 praying for quashing of the proceeding. 4. On 22.12.2025, the case before the court below was proceeded for cross- examination of the informant. On that date, the petitioner filed a fresh application praying for an adjournment on the ground that the aforementioned criminal petition is pending before this court for disposal. It may be mentioned that there is no stay order passed by this Court. Therefore, the trial court refused the prayer of the petitioner and closed the hearing of the evidence of the informant. 5. The petitioner submits that he deserves to be given one opportunity to cross- examine the informant of the case that too for the ends of justice. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be given one opportunity to cross-examine the informant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Page No.# 3/3 8. The petitioner Fazal Ahmed shall be given one opportunity to cross-examine the informant of the case and after that the trial court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. With the aforesaid direction, the present criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant