Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010063712026 2026:GAU-AS:4402 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/672/2026 JIYAR ALI SON OF SAYED ALI @ ABDUL SAYED P/R VILL- POKALAGI PART-III, P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, N O POMONG,MS. K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 27-03-2026 Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Jiyar Ali who is apprehending arrest in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No. 1380/2019 (corresponding to Page No.# 2/3 G.R. Case No. 6224/2019) registered under Section 376 IPC. 3. Ms. Devi, learned counsel submitted that present petitioner is innocent and with some false and concocted allegation, the FIR has been lodged. She further submitted that during the time of incident, he was working in Chennai and hence, he is not aware about the case, registered against him. 4. She further submitted that from the charge sheet itself it is seen that the informant refused to go for medical examination, which is essential in a case under Section 376 IPC. 5. One criminal petition has also been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, which is pending for disposal and the learned CJM has already issued BWA against the petitioner and hence, he needs some protection, so that he can appear and contest the case accordingly. 6. Mr. Borthakur, learned APP submitted that from the order passed by the learned CJM it reveals that on several occasion time was granted for filing the stay orders before the learned CJM, but it seems that there is no stay order passed by this Court in the criminal petition filed by the petitioner. However, it is submitted by Mr. Borthakur, learned APP, that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the learned Trial Court with an appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with law. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition. 8. It is a fact that the petitioner was shown as an absconder in the charge sheet and at the same time, it is also seen that he also filed a criminal petition for quashing of the FIR and the charge sheet. 9. However, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, Page No.# 3/3 the petitioner is directed appear before the learned Trial Court with an appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with law within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of order. 10. Accordingly, the Bailable Warrant of Arrest issued against the petitioner shall remain suspended for a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of order enabling the petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court with an appropriate application for bail. 11. With the above observation and direction, this pre-arrest bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant