Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2031/2026 of MD ROMJAN ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 23 July 2026
GAHC010151952026 2026:GAU-AS:10160 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2031/2026 MD ROMJAN ALI SON OF YAKUB ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TITAPANI, P.O. BALAGAON, P.S. KALGACHIA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010151952026
2026:GAU-AS:10160
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2031/2026
MD ROMJAN ALI
SON OF YAKUB ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TITAPANI, P.O. BALAGAON, P.S. KALGACHIA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K AZAD, MR A K KHAN,MR. I HUSSAIN,MR N JAMAL
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
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
24.07.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the petitioner namely, Md. Romjan Ali has prayed for bail as he was absent on 5(five) consecutive dates in connection with Sessions Case No.25/2018 arising out of Jonai P.S Case No.33/2017 registered u/s 366 IPC.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has prayed to remain on previous bail by recalling the NBWA issued against him but the trial court has rejected his prayer and has forwarded the petitioner to custody vide order dated 28.07.2026.
4. As the petitioner was absent on 5(five) consecutive dates without taking steps, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection against the conduct of the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail on this fag end of the trial.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar with circumspection.
6. I have considered the submission that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the trial.
7. Although, the petitioner has defaulted in appearance on 5(five) consecutive dates, yet, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above-named petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, as the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the trial.
8. I have taken a pragmatic view. The case is not required to be procrastinated any further. This is an old pending case. The bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear regularly on each date and cooperate with the trial.
9. In terms of the above observation, this bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant