Gauhati High Court
Abjal Hussain Choudhury vs The State Of Assam on 29 April, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010058502025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/657/2025
ABJAL HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE MONIR UDDIN CHOUDHURY, VILL AND PO- BORHAILAKANDI
PT- 3, DIST AND PS HAILAKANDI, PIN- 788155
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T A CHOUDHURY, J NABI,MR. A Y CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 29.04.2025
1. Heard Mr. T. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Abjal Hussain Choudhury, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with GR Case No. 2312/2016 corresponding to Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 664/2016.
Page No.# 2/4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of an FIR which was lodged by the father of the victim girl, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner trespassed into his house and forcefully took away her minor daughter, the Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 664/2016 was registered under Sections 448/366(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
4. It is further submitted that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present petitioner under Sections 448/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code showing the present petitioner as an absconder. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though summons were issued to the petitioner in the instant case by the Committal Court, however, as the charge-sheet was laid under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was apprehensive that on his appearance before the Committal Court, he would be remanded to custody, and therefore, he did not appear before the Trial Court. He further submits that the petitioner has been again declared a proclaimed offender by the Trial Court, and standing non- bailable warrant of arrest have been issued against him.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to face the trial, and his custodial detention may not be necessary, hence, he may be allowed to go on bail.
6. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner is not such so as to give him the benefit of anticipatory bail in this case. He submits that not only the petitioner was declared as an absconder in the charge-sheet, however, thereafter the Committal Court issued summons to the petitioner, and thereafter bailable warrant of arrest and thereafter non-bailable warrant of arrest, and thereafter the orders for Page No.# 3/4 proclamation of the present petitioner as an absconder.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused a scanned copy of the records of the GR Case No. 2312/2016, which was called for in connection with this case.
8. It appears from the record that the incident involved in this case is of the year 2016, i.e., almost nine years ago, on 01.02.2016. It also appears that after finding sufficient materials against the present petitioner, the charge- sheet under Sections 448/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code was laid against the present petitioner.
9. It also appears that though the petitioner was shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet, however, the Committal Court rightly issued the summons at the first instance to the present petitioner which was received by the petitioner. Later on, bailable warrant of arrest was issued and thereafter, non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation of the petitioner as an offender was issued.
10. In this case, the petitioner has not denied the receipt of summons by the Trial Court, however, merely because of his apprehension, he evaded the course of justice for so long that ultimately the Trial Court declared him as a proclaimed offender.
11. This is not a case where the police only has shown the petitioner as an absconder in the charge-sheet rather the Committal Court after following the due process had issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the present petitioner.
12. This Court is of the opinion that when a proclamation under Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 84 of the BNSS has been issued Page No.# 4/4 against an accused and the accused is unable to show any other specific reason or that he was not aware of the earlier processes issued by the Trial Court against him, he may not avail the benefit of a favourable order under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail.
13. In the instant case also, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to get a favourable order under Section 482 of the BNSS.
14. The prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected.
15. The petitioner may appear before the Committal Court and may pray for regular bail before the said court, if so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant