Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010127082026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1679/2026 SRI RAJU KARMAKAR S/O LATE SANSAURA KARMAKAR, R/O NEW GHOGORA OFFICE LINE, PS TEZPUR, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K HANDIQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 15.07.2026 Heard Mr. K.K. Handique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the Page No.# 2/3 petitioner, Raju Karmakar has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in connection with Sessions Case No. 124/2026 corresponding to PR Case No. 1020 of 2020 arising out of Tezpur P.S. Case No. 317/2020 under Section 302 of IPC. 3. It appears that the petitioner was initially arrested at the time of the incident which took place on 14.02.2020 and thereafter he was released on Court bail. 4. It is reflected in the order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the connected Sessions Case No. 124/2026 that despite several process is being issued by the committal Court, the accused could not be found and ultimately he had to be arrested by the police on the strength of NBWA issued by the said Court on 25.03.2026 and thereby prolonging the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions for long 5 years. 5. In the bail application filed before the learned Sessions Judge, it has been stated that the accused after being released on Court bail had migrated to a different place in connection with work and had married and hence started living in the house of his father-in-law because of which he did not receive any summons or notice of the Court. 6. If that be the case, then it was the duty of the petitioner to have notified his change of address to which the Court notice/summons could be sent. 7. The petitioner cannot hide behind his own act of changing his address in order to justify his non-appearance before the Court due to non receipt of notice/summons. Page No.# 3/3 8. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner as well as the gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail at this stage as such release is likely to cause further delay in the trail. Hence, the prayer for bail stands rejected. 9. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. 10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant