Quashed

Shakir Ahmed v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC8 Apr 2025Crl.Petn./71/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest issued by a Special Judge upon the application of an accused previously granted bail. The warrant was quashed due to the issuance by the trial court without first cancelling the bail bonds or notifying the sureties, despite an explanation regarding a scheduling miscommunication by the accused.

What did the court decide?

The Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest issued on 21.03.2025 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall appear on 29.04.2025.

Shakir Ahmed Vs The State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040005492025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./71/2025

¶5

Shakir Ahmed

¶6

Son of Shri Rahium Uddin Barbhuyan, Village Mubarak Basti, Nilbagan Ward No.10, PO and PS Hojai, District Hojai, Assam.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : R NAJI, M Ranka,B Tagia,T Gameh

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 09-04-2025

¶14

Heard Mr. T. Gameh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

2. This is an application under Section 528 & 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing of the Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) Order, issued on 21.03.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia in NDPS Case No. 07/2023 arising out of Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 82/2023 under Sections 21(b) of

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

the NDPS Act.

¶18

3. Mr. Gameh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has argued that in the aforementioned case, the accused/petitioner had been granted bail by this Court on 17.11.2023. It is submitted that the accused/petitioner was appearing regularly before the learned Trial Court, however, on a fixed date, the accused/petitioner could not appear before the Court due to a miscommunication regarding the scheduled date.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner stated that the accused was not responsible for the absence due miscommunication regarding the scheduled date and it is also submitted that the accused person was not heard and the previous bail granted to him was not cancelled before the learned Trial Court issued the NBWA. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner that without cancelling his earlier bail, the learned Trial Court could not have issued the NBWA against him and therefore, it is prayed that the said NBWA may be quashed and set aside.

¶20

5. The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has also undertaken that the accused is ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court on a date fixed by this Court.

¶21

6. I have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who has fairly submitted that the said NBWA could not have been issued by the learned Trial Court without cancelling the bail bonds. He has relied in the case of Makhan Lal vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 306 , wherein, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

Kashmir has observed that a mere failure to appear before the Court in the absence of any willingness on part of the accused would not amount to a “breach” and there has to be animus on part of accused not to abide by or comply with the terms and conditions of the bond. Such animus alone makes the failure of accused to appear, a breach in terms of Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. Such animus on the part of accused could be ascertained only after affording sufficient opportunity to the accused.

¶24

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has also relied on a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Basit Uddin vs. the State of Arunachal Pradesh , reported in 2024 0 GAU (AP)1003 , wherein, it was also held that Non-Bailable Warrant cannot be issued without prior cancellation of bail and due process, emphasizing the necessity of following legal procedures.

¶25

8. After examining the records and after hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the bail granted on 17.11.2023 by this Court was not cancelled nor was the surety given any notice before issuing the NBWA on 21.03.2025.

¶26

9. Accordingly, the Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) Order, issued on 21.03.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia in NDPS Case No. 07/2023 arising out of Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 82/2023 under Sections 21(b) of the NDPS Act is hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶27

10. The petitioner/accused shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 29.04.2025 and if the petitioner/accused fails to appear on the said date fixed

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

by this Court, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶30

11. With the above observations and directions, the criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Shakir Ahmed v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir Ahmed v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Flago Vs The State of Ap

Solu Islam Vs The State of Ap

Amulya Senapati Vs The State of Ap

Tagru Tame Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Tagru Tame Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Tagru Tame Vs The State of Ap and Anr.