Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010199462025 2026:GAU-AS:4326 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2203/2025 JULU HOQUE LASKAR @ RIJBUL HOQUE LASKAR S/O- AINUL HOQUE LASKAR @ RIJBUL HOQUE. R/O- JAMALPUR FV, P.S.- DHOLAI, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN - 788120 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MR. F A HASSAN,MS. S. CHANDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 23.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Julu Hoque Laskar @ Page No.# 2/6 Rijbul Hoque Laskar, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Dholai PS case No. 80/24 under Section 21(C) of NDPS Act, which after completion of investigation resulted in a charge-sheet against one Rajibul Islam Laskar and 3 others persons which includes the present petitioner, Julu Hoque Laskar and these 3 (three) persons have been indicated as absconders by the Investigating Agency. The charge sheet has been filed under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. The learned counsel drawing attention to para 17 of the charge- sheet submits that apart from mentioning that the 3 (three) purportedly absconding persons, including the petitioner are not to be found, there is no other implicating narration in the charge-sheet. 4. The learned counsel submits that as the investigation is completed and the petitioner is willing to face the trial and without any narration of any adverse materials, the police is not justified in just mentioning him as an absconders. 5. The scanned TCR has been received. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the order dated 11/06/2025 passed by the learned trial court in the NDPS case No. 119 of 24, which was registered in the case after the submission of the charge sheet. 7. I have perused the said order. It is revealed from that order that after examining the Executing Officer pursuant to P & A report, the learned trial court was pleased to declare the petitioner and two others as proclaimed absconders and case was filed against them, apart from Page No.# 3/6 keeping the NBWA pending in the concerned police station. 8. The learned Additional Public prosecutor by referring to the decision of State of Madhya Pradesh versus Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 and K. Ravi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 SCC Online SC 642 submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these cases, granting of anticipatory bail in the context of the petitioner being declared as proclaimed absconder by the court would be barred. 9. I have perused the materials and considered the submissions and also the case laws cited at the Bar. 10. Upon perusing the decision in Pradeep Sharma (supra) I find that it is clearly held therein after referring to another decision that if a person is declared an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. The said decision was delivered by a two Judge Bench. The relevant para 16 may be reproduced herein below: “16. Recently. in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 vis-à-vis a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 733) "12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as 'absconder'. Normally, when the accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled Page No.# 4/6 to the relief of anticipatory bail." It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Dubey vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC online SC 5633. In the said decision, in para 8, it has been stated that even in case of a declaration under section 82 of the Cr.P.C. it may not be a total embargo on anticipatory bail in all cases. The relevant Para 8 may be reproduced herein below: “ Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipator bail.” 12. The coram of Asha Dubey (Supra) is also two judges. 13. In this context, a Division Bench of this Court in the case National Investigation Agency vs Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate in Crl.A.234 of 2025 has held that when there is apparent conflict of two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered by benches of equal strength, the decision earlier in point of time has to be followed. 14. While arriving at this opinion, the Division Bench referred to a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The relevant para 16 and 28 of the said judgment may be reproduced herein below: Page No.# 5/6 ” 16. In State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer. (2003) 5 SCC 448]. it has been held: (SCC p. 454, para 100) 10. an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the court or more aspects should have been gone into by the court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction...." .....10.... Easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not either to follow the permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue, in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merits. 28. In this context, may also refer to Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra [Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra. (2014) 16 SCC 623 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 558] which correctly lays down the principle that discipline demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of great importance. Since without it, certainty of law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts would become a costly casualty. A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench. There can be no scintilla of doubt that an earlier decision of co- equal Bench binds the Bench of same strength.” 15. Thus, it is clear that as the decisions in Pradeep Sharma (supra) and Asha Dubey (supra) are of equal Bench strength and the decision in Pradeep Sharma (supra) has come earlier in point of time – therefore, this Court cannot overlook the law laid down in Pradeep Sharma (supra) and has to follow the same. Page No.# 6/6 16. In a more recent decision of Srikant Upadhyay and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. 2024 INSC 202, a 2-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also delved into this issue and held in para 24 that when a proclamation is issued the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme and exceptional circumstances in the interest of justice. 17. In the instant case, I do not find any such extreme or extraordinary circumstances to invoke the small exception carved out by the decision in Srikant Upadhyay (supra). 18. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, as already discussed, since the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed absconder by the learned Trial Court, granting of anticipatory will be barred in terms of the aforesaid governing law. 19. Consequently, the instant bail petition stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant