Gauhati High Court
AB/61/2026 of Md Abdul Zalil Vs The State of AP on 20 July 2026
GAHC040008182026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/61/2026 Md Abdul Zalil Son of Abdul Hasan, resident of Bedlangkhaiti, PO Monakocha, SP Bijni, Chirang District, Assam 783391 VERSUS The State of AP represented by
GAHC040008182026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB/61/2026
Md Abdul Zalil
Son of Abdul Hasan, resident of Bedlangkhaiti, PO Monakocha, SP Bijni, Chirang District, Assam 783391
VERSUS
The State of AP
represented by the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : P Bordoloi, Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. T. Jini, Addl. AP, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
21.07.2026 None appears on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called. Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appears for the State.
2. By order dated 05.06.2026, this Court granted the petitioner interim protection from arrest subject to the condition, inter alia, that he shall appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation.
3. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on the petitioner’s prayer on 12.06.2026 and 17.06.2026. On 26.06.2026, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Even today, when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
4. In the absence of the petitioner or his counsel, this Court has perused the Case Diary. The Case Diary discloses that despite the liberty and protection granted by this Court; the petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Officer on called and has failed to cooperate with the investigation. This is in clear violation of the conditions subject to which interim anticipatory bail was granted.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that during the course of investigation it has come to light that the petitioner is also involved in three other criminal cases registered in the States of Gujarat, Kerala and Maharashtra. It is further submitted that while seeking anticipatory bail, the petitioner had stated that no criminal case was pending against him. This statement of the accused petitioner is found to be incorrect in view of the materials collected during investigation.
6. Anticipatory bail is an equitable and discretionary relief. A person who seeks such extraordinary protection is expected to approach the Court with clean hands and comply with the conditions imposed by the Court. The petitioner’s conduct, as reflected from the Case Diary, demonstrates that after obtaining interim protection, he did not appear before the Investigating Officer nor cooperated with the investigation. His continued absence before this Court also indicates that he is no longer interested in pursuing the present bail application.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to comply with the conditions of the interim order and has disentitled himself to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the interim order dated 05.06.2026 granting anticipatory bail is hereby vacated, and the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
8. The Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, including taking such steps as may be permissible under law for securing the custody of the petitioner, if so required. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
JUDGE CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Talom Tali Date: 2026.07.22 11:22:51 +05'30'