Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010118122026 2026:GAU-AS:8449 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./839/2026 SAYED ALI SK ALIAS SAIYAD ALI AND 4 ORS. SON OF LT. ABBAS ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEBOTTAR HASDAH PT. VI, P.S. GAURIPUR, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783334. 2: JAMER ALI ALIAS JARME ALI HOQUE SON OF MONSER ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEBOTTAR HASDAH PT. VI P.S. GAURIPUR DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783334. 3: MAHIJ UDDIN SHEIKH @ MAHISH ALI SON OF BHELU SHEIKH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEBOTTAR HASDAH PT. VI P.S. GAURIPUR DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783334. 4: MAJIBAR RAHMAN SON OF BHELU SHEIKH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEBOTTAR HASDAH PT. VI P.S. GAURIPUR DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783334. 5: SAMSUL HOQUE ALIIAS SAMSUL ALI SON OF ASKAR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEBOTTAR HASDAH PT. VI P.S. GAURIPUR DISTRICT DHUBRI Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN-783334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:SAHERA BIBI WIFE OF SOBAHAN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEBOTTAR HASDAH PT. VI P.S. GAURIPUR DISTRICT DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, T TALUKDAR,MS. D BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 12.06.2026 [1] Heard Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. [2] This criminal petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners, namely, 1. Sayed Ali Sk. @ Saiyad Ali, 2. Jamer Ali @ Jarme Ali Hoque, 3. Mahij Uddin Sheikh @ Mahish Ali, 4. Majibar Rahman and 5. Samsul Hoque @ Samsul Ali, impugning the order dated 11.05.2026, passed by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Page No.# 3/4 Special Judge (POCSO), Dhubri in Special Case No. 189/2023, whereby the trial court issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the present petitioners rejecting the petition filed by them for adjournment and dispensing their personal attendance before the court on that day. [3] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 11.05.2026, the petitioners could not appear before the trial court, as they had to harvest their paddy due to flash floods which came during that time. He submits that the petitioners are ready to appear before the trial court on the next date fixed and co- operate in the trial. However, unless the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against them is stayed, they may be arrested and in that case, they would be highly prejudiced. [4] On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of any relief to the petitioners at this stage mainly on the ground that bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioners are not co-operating in the trial and were absent before the trial court on one or other pretext and as such, the case could not proceed any further beyond the stage of consideration of charges. [5] I have considered the submissions made by Page No.# 4/4 the learned counsel for the petitioners. [6] On perusal of the records, it appears that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026, cannot be faulted with on any ground as it has taken into the consideration the past conduct of the petitioners in remaining absent on the fixed date since 31.05.2025. However, for the ends of justice, one more chance is granted to the petitioners to personally present themselves before the trial court on the next date fixed, i.e., 08.07.2026 and to facilitate their appearance before the trial court on the next date, i.e., 08.07.2026, the operation of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against them by the trial court shall remain stayed, till that day, i.e. 08.07.2026. [7] With the above observations, this criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant