Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040005302026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/32/2026 Ranjan Kumar Sarmah Son of Karuna Kanti Sarmah, permanent resident of Junaki Nagar No.2, Chila Gaon, Silapathar, PO and PS Silapathar, Dhemaji District, Assam 787059 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Duge Soki, Terjum Nima Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of regular bail to the accused person, namely, Shri Jayanta Kumar Sarmah in connection with G.R. Case No. 27/2008 under Page No.# 2/5 Section 420 IPC, 1860 corresponding to Daporijo P.S. Case No.18/2008. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is to the effect that one Shri Surendra Prasad Singh has filed a complaint on 30.03.2008 to the effect that the accused, who is working in the State Bank of India, Daporijo Branch took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) only on 08.01.2008 to be paid back within 1(one) month at the rate of 10% interest per month. The accused had issued a cheque and when the complainant deposited the said cheque for withdrawal of the money, the concerned Bank Manager informed of insufficient fund in the account, thereby, alleged of cheating by the accused person. 4. Pursuant to the complaint a case was registered being Daporijo P.S. Case No.18/2008 under Section 420 IPC, 1860. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2009 and subsequently, was enlarged on bail. On completion of the investigation, the police has submitted the chargesheet being No.57/2008 on 11.10.2008 and registered the case as G.R. Case No.27/2008 under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter, the accused was arrested on 27.02.2020 and was again enlarged on bail. 5. During the trial, when the accused failed to appear before the jurisdictional court, Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest was issued against the accused and accordingly, the accused was arrested by the police from Dibrugarh on 17.02.2026 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo on 18.02.2026. Page No.# 3/5 6. A bail application was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo which was rejected by an order dated 02.03.2026 on the ground that the accused person would not cooperate with the court if released on bail. 7. Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused has no intention to remain absent before the court but the failure to appear was due to non-receipt of any information/communication from the engaged counsel. The accused has also not received any summons from the court. Since the absence of the accused during the trial was not intentional or deliberate, the accused may be enlarged on bail as he is ready to furnish sound surety and security to the satisfaction of court, attend court proceedings regularly, would not tamper with prosecution evidences or try to influence the witnesses and would comply with any conditions that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to impose. 8. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the accused was arrested after issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest on having been found to have failed to appear during the trial. He however, fairly submits that he would not have any serious objection if the accused is released on bail with adequate surety of security his presence during the trial as he has been remained absent during the trial. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. 10. The accused was arrested on the strength of Non-Bailable Warrant of Page No.# 4/5 arrest issued on 12.07.2022 from Dibrugarh on 17.02.2026. The learned trial court refused to grant bail to the accused on the ground that the accused would not cooperate with the court, if released on bail. 11. Having considered the materials on record and also considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the arrest of the petitioner on 17.02.2026 was on the strength of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest issued on 12.07.2022 as the accused has failed to appear during the trial, and the learned trial court has refused to enlarge the accused on bail as the accused person may not cooperate with the court, if released on bail as well as considering that the accused has spent 51 days in the judicial custody and is ready to furnish adequate bond, sound surety and security for the purpose of bail and undertakes to remain present before the trial court to stand trial as and when called upon to do so, I am of the considered view that the accused deserves to be admitted to bail. Accordingly, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with 2(two) sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, the accused, namely, Shri Jayanta Kumar Sarmah be released on bail in connection with G.R. Case No. 27/2008 corresponding to Daporijo P.S. Case No. 18/2008 under Section 420 IPC, 1860 on the following conditions:- i) The accused shall present before the Chief Judicial Magistarte, Daporijo as and when called for; and ii) The accused shall not tamper and hamper with the evidence/witnesses. 12. Bail application stands allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant