[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 15 December, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010275492025
2025:GAU-AS:17330
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1569/2025
IKRAM ALI @ EKRAMALI
SON OF MD. HABIB ALI
R/O VILL- BARNAGAR
(BANEKUCHI) P.S. NALBARI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SMTI. GEETA BARMAN
W/OP LATE RAMANI BARMAN
R/O VILL- BARBHAG JARI
P.O. BAKUAJHARI
P.S. TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D R SAIKIA,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
15.12.2025
Heard Mr. D.R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Begum, learned
Page No.# 2/3
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State.
2. A First Information Report [FIR] was lodged against the petitioner by the prosecutrix
on 05.07.2013 before the Officer In-Charge, Tihu Police Station. The said FIR was registered
as Tihu Police Station Case no. 56/2013 for the offences under Sections
458/323/427/366/376, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. After investigation, the Investigating Officer
[I.O.] submitted a charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet no. 252/2015 on 31.07.2015 finding a
prima facie case well established against three accused persons including the petitioner
herein for commission of the offences under Sections 457/366/376, IPC. In the Charge-Sheet,
the petitioner was shown as an absconder. The other two charge-sheeted accused persons
stood the trial before the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalbari ['the Trial Court',
for short] in Sessions Case no. 59/2015.
3. The charges were framed against the charge sheeted accused persons for the offences
under Sections 457/506/376/34, IPC and after the trial, the Trial Court recorded a finding that
the prosecution could not establish a case against the two accused persons who stood in the
trial, beyond all reasonable doubt and they were acquitted by the Trial Court vide a Judgment
dated 15.10.2015.
4. In so far as the petitioner who was absconding during the trial is concerned, the
prosecutrix deposed regarding his identity and the same was recorded in paragraph 9 of the
Judgment dated 15.10.2015.
5. The petitioner has approached this Court by the present criminal petition seeking recall
of the Non-Bailable Warrant Arrest [NBWA] issued against him as well as issuance of
Proclamation & Attachment [P&A] directed by the Trial Court during the course of the
proceedings of Sessions Case no. 59/2015.
6. The petitioner has sought to explain his absence during the trial by stating that after
lodging of an FIR by him on 05.07.2013 against two of the relatives of the prosecutrix of
Page No.# 3/3
Sessions Case no. 59/2015, he went to Chennai in search of job and he did not return to his
native village for years together. The petitioner has stated that he had no knowledge about
filing of the FIR on 05.07.2013 by the prosecutix. It is only recently the petitioner came to his
native village and has come to learn about the issuance of NBWA and P&A against him in
Sessions Case no. 59/2015.
7. The explanation provided by the petitioner is found unsatisfactory for recalling of the
Non-Bailable Warrant Arrest [NBWA] as well as issuance of Proclamation & Attachment [P&A]
against him. On examination, no infirmity has been found in the procedure followed by the
Trial Court in issuing NBWA and P&A against the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear in
the trial for about ten years. It is only after acquittal of the other two charge-sheeted accused
persons the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above relief.
8. In the above fact situation obtaining in the case, the relief sought for by the petitioner
cannot be granted and the criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is,
however, at liberty to approach the Trial Court to stand in the trial.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
