Bail Appln./1150/2026 of ISHAB ALI ALIAS MD ESHAB ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 1 June 2026

ORDER

02.06.2026 Heard Mr. Robiul Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

R.R. Kaushik, learned APP for the State and Dr. P. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no.2. The petitioner, who is an accused in Special (POCSO) Case No. 20/2020, was initially arrested on 27.02.2020 during the course of investigation of the case. Thereafter, by order dated 02.06.2020, the learned trial Court enlarged the petitioner on bail. After submission of the charge-sheet, the first summons was issued to the petitioner as an accused by order dated 09.12.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various orders passed by the learned trial Court, each of which reflects that the summons issued to the petitioner had not been executed, at least till 05.02.2025. By order dated 11.03.2025, the learned trial Court recorded that the summons issued against the petitioner had been returned after proper service. On account of the petitioner's non-appearance, the learned trial Court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) against the accused/petitioner. Thereafter, the accused/petitioner was taken into custody pursuant to the said NBWA on 16.07.2025 and was produced before the learned trial Court on 18.07.2025, from which date he has been in judicial custody. The learned APP has submitted that the trial has progressed only to the extent of recording the evidence of 3 witnesses and that several other witnesses are yet to be examined.

The learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage may adversely affect the recording of evidence of the remaining witnesses. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae has opposed the prayer for bail. Both the learned APP and the learned Amicus Curiae have, therefore, objected to the bail petition filed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was on bail during the period of investigation. It is also evident from the records that the petitioner has remained in incarceration for about 11 months after being taken into custody pursuant to the NBWA issued by the learned trial Court and was also in custody for about 3 months during the period of investigation. The evidence of 3 witnesses, including the victim and the informant, has already been recorded by the learned trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may be allowed to avail the privilege of bail at this stage, subject to the strict condition that he shall not, in any manner whatsoever, interfere with or hamper the recording of evidence of the remaining witnesses during the course of the trial. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not received the summons issued on the earlier occasion as he was residing outside the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court and the concerned police station at the relevant point of time. In such circumstances, this Court also imposes the condition that the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court without obtaining prior written permission from the said Court and without furnishing his complete residential address and contact details where he may be reached. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with 2 (two) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, subject to such other conditions as the learned trial Court may deem fit and proper to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case. This bail petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant