Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Page No.# 2/4 on 28 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010005042025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/90/2025
HAPANTA HEMBROM @ RABIRAM HEMBROM AND 5 ORS
S/O- ROBEN HEMBROM VILLAGE-SAMAIJHORA, P.S.-GOSSAINGAON
DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM
2: TINKU @ MOHAN TUDU
S/O- LT. BIJOY TUDU VILLAGE-BOROBIL
P.S.-GOSSAINGAON DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
3: DINESH BASKE
S/O-SOM BASKE VILLAGE-BOROBIL P.S.-GOSSAINGAON DISTRICT-
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
4: LAL BAKE @ BIHARI @ BABULAL BASKEY
S/O- SOTTO BASKE VILLAGE- BOROBIL P.S.-GOSSAIMGAON DISTRICT-
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
5: BAILU @ LAKHIRAM KISKU
S/O-LATE THAILA KISKU VILLAGE-SAMAIJHORA P.S.-GOSSALMGAON
DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
6: BOLEN SOREN
S/O- MOTAI SOREN VLLLAGE- SAMAIJHORA P.S.-GOSSAIMGAON
DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/4
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE LEARNED PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, MS. L WANGSA,MS A DAS,MR D S DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 28-01-2025
Heard Mr. T. Deuri, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms.
S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
State respondent.
2. This is an application u/s 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioners in
connection with PRC Case No. 109/2019 u/s 143/341/425/427/506/307 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Deuri that from the FIR itself it is seen that the FIR
was lodged against some unknown persons and the name of the petitioners or
the other accused persons are also not named in the FIR. However,
subsequently the charge-sheet was filed showing the petitioners as absconders
in the charge-sheet. But, during investigation neither the police visited to their
residence nor they were called for investigation purpose and hence these
petitioners were not aware about any proceeding in any Court. However, after
Page No.# 3/4
receiving summons, they came to know about the pendency of this case. All the
petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court below
and face the trial. As the case has been charge-sheeted u/s 307 IPC, they are in
apprehension that they might be arrested in connection with this case and
hence they filed the present petition seeking some protection so that they can
appear before the learned Trial Court below with an appropriate application for
bail.
4. Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this
regard that vide order dated 06.07.2024, P/A is also issued against one Sanjay
Soren who is also shown as absconder in the charge-sheet.
5. Accordingly she insisted to call for the scanned copy of the case record to
verify the service of summons etc. to the petitioners.
6. In this context, Mr. Deuri, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that as these petitioners were shown as an absconder and the learned Trial
Court below had only issued the summons and hence their anticipatory bail is
maintainable. In this context, he also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Court
reported in AIR 2024 SC (Criminal) 605, Srikant Upadhyay and Others
vs. State of Bihar and Another and accordingly he emphasized in para 24 of
the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"4. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary
power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and
the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the
Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of
interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of
justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to
Page No.# 4/4
tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the
Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as
the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted
arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when
warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-
arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s)
continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant."
7. Accordingly, he submitted that there were some other accused/persons
were also shown as absconder in the charge-sheet. They subsequently got
arrested and enlarged on bail and thereafter, they failed to appear before the
learned Trial Court below for which P/A was issued against some of the
accused/persons. But, the learned Court below only issued summons against
the present accused/petitioners and they are ready and willing to appear before
the learned Trial Court below.
8. Considering the entire submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners and other aspects of the matter and also considering the view of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, all the petitioners are hereby asked to appear before the
learned Trial Court below within 15 days from the date of order with an
appropriate application for bail, which may be considered in accordance with
law. Till then, as an interim measure, no coercive action shall be taken against
the present petitioners.
9. With the above observations, the present bail application stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
