Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 13 March, 2026

    0
    46
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Gauhati High Court

    Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 13 March, 2026

                                                                             Page No.# 1/3
    
    GAHC010041172026
    
    
    
    
                                                                      undefined
    
                                  THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
       (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
    
                                       Case No. : AB/536/2026
    
                BOZLER RAHMAN MONDAL AND ANR
                S/O LT. SHAMSER ALI MONDAL,
                R/O VILL. UZAN JHAGRARCHAR, P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST. SOUTH
                SALMARA, MANKACHAR, ASSAM.
    
                2: ATIKUR RAHMAN @ KASA
                 S/O LT. BOSIR SK.
                R/O VIL- KALODEWANIRGRAM
                 P.S. MANKACHAR
                 DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
                ASSAM
    
                VERSUS
    
                THE STATE OF ASSAM
                REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
    
    
    
    Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. SURAJIT DAS, MR A K DAS,MR. RASHIDUL ISLAM
    
    Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
    
    
    
    
                                       BEFORE
                         HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
    
                                               ORDER
    

    Date : 13.03.2026

    Heard Mr. Surajit Das, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr R.J.
    Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

    SPONSORED

    Page No.# 2/3

    By this application, the petitioners have sought for bail in connection with
    PRC Case No. 214/2022 registered under Section 120(B)/212/416/417/468/341
    of the IPC, Read with Section 14(a)(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 Read with
    Section 3(3) of the Passport Act read with Rule 6 of the Passport Rules, 1950.
    The FIR dated 07.06.2020 reveals that while raiding the house of accused no.2,
    the police personnel found accused no.1 and while interrogating accused no.1, it
    was revealed that he entered into India from Bangladesh around 15-20 years
    back and living at the house of petitioner no.1 and projected petitioner no.1 as
    his father and that he also obtained forged documents showing that he is a
    citizen of India. It was also alleged that accused no.1 got married to the
    daughter of petitioner no.2 and lived in the house of petitioner no.1.

    Mr. Surajit Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the
    petitioners were enlarged on interim pre arrest bail vide order dated 27.08.2020
    and during the pendency of the said bail application charge sheet was submitted
    and by order dated 07.12.2020, the said interim order was extended by 15 days
    so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Trial Court and move an
    application before the same. However, the petitioners did not move the
    application before the Trial Court stating that it was the Covid period time and
    the petitioners were never on bail and that subsequently on 27.06.2022
    summons were issued from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
    Hatsingimari and then vide order dated 07.02.2026, the petitioners again did not
    appear before the Trial Court and NBWA was issued against them.

    Mr. Surajit Das, learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that
    the petitioners would appear before the Trial Court and seeks bail in the mean
    time.

    Mr R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State,
    Page No.# 3/3

    however, submits that the FIR reveals a serious matter of concerned as it is an
    admitted fact that the petitioners have given shelter to a person who entered
    into India from Bangladesh by illegal means and that he also submits that after
    getting interim order, the petitioners did not appear before the learned Court
    neither they appeared when summons were issued to them. He as such submits
    that the conduct of the parties shows that they will never appear before the
    Court below.

    On consideration of the submissions made at the bar and by considering the
    fact that the petitioners were enlarged on interim bail and were given 15 days
    period to appear before the Trial Court. However, due to advent of Covid, the
    petitioners could not comply with the terms of the order of this Court, this Court
    deems it fit that the petitioners be enlarged on pre-arrest bail on furnishing of a
    bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one local surety of the like amount to the
    satisfaction of SDJM, South Salmara, Mankachar under the following conditions:

    i) The petitioners will appear before the Trial Court as

    and when call for.

    ii) The petitioners will not hamper or tamper with the

    evidence or influence the witnesses connected with the case.

    Petition is disposed of.

    JUDGE

    Comparing Assistant

    [ad_1]

    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here