The Gauhati High Court dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail made by Ramjan Ali. The Court held that since a Non-Bailable Warrant, Proclamation and Attachment were pending against the applicant for evading arrest, the application was not maintainable and bail could not be granted under Section 482 of BNSS.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010158242026
2026:GAU-AS:13630
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1739/2026
RAMJAN ALI
SON OF LATE SOHURUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO.1 BACHASHIMALU P.S.- BIHAGURI DISTRICT SONITPUR, ASSAM PIN- 784110
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A HUSSAIN, G BORO,MR D J HALOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
15.09.2026
Heard Mr. D. J. Haloi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by applicant, namely, Ramjan Ali , who has been apprehending his arrest in connection with PRC Case No. 875/2023, arising out of Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 106/2022, under Sections 447/376 of the IPC, for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Taslima Khatun (actual name withheld), on 18.03.2022. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 18.03.2022, is that on 16.03.2022, at about 10:00 AM, one Shahjahan Ali, Md. Naushad Ali, Rafiqul Islam and the present applicant had taken her daughter, namely, Smti. ‘X’ (actual name withheld), to the hill of Singri temple, with a view to marry her and there, committed rape upon her and left her at old Sitalmari Centre, on 17.03.2022, at about 7:00 PM.
4. Mr. Haloi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the investigating officer, after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Section 120B/34 IPC, and that thereafter, the learned Trial Court had issued NonBailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) and Proclamation and Attachment against the present applicant; which, according to Mr. Haloi, has been illegally issued
Page No.# 3/4
against the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant is ready to face trial and therefore, he has contended to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.
5. Per contra, Mr. Barthakur, learned APP, has vehemently opposed the application. He submits that the case has already been charge-sheeted and the learned Trial Court has issued NBWA and also issued Proclamation and Attachment against the present applicant. By referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip Sarma , reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 , he submits that it is well settled that when NBWA and Proclamation and Attachment are pending against an accused, the privilege of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the accused and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the application.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also perused the decision referred to by Mr. Barthakur, learned APP.
7. It is well settled in the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Another , reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382 , that where an NBWA is pending and the process of proclamation under Sections 82/83 CrPC has been issued, the accused is not entitled to any relief of anticipatory bail. It is also well settled that the relief granted by exercising the power under Section 438 of erstwhile Cr.P.C., is extraordinary and continuous defiance of Court process and absconding, disentitles a person from the same. Similar observation is also made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip Sarma (Supra) , which Mr. Barthakur, learned APP has referred
Page No.# 4/4
to.
8. In the instant case, NBWA and Proclamation and Attachment is pending against the applicant since long. He has been evading arrest and the process of the Court.
9. In view of above, this Court is of the view that this pre-arrest bail application is not at all maintainable and therefore, the same stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a pre-arrest bail application is maintainable when a Non-Bailable Warrant, Proclamation and Attachment are pending against the applicant for absconding.
Whether the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused has evaded arrest and the process of the Court.
Whether the powers under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 can be exercised to grant pre-arrest bail in the face of pending judicial process.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip SarmaRelied on¶21
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradip Sarma, (2014) 2 SCC 171 · Who else cites this
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & AnotherRelied on¶24
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 · Who else cites this
RAMJAN ALI
THE STATE OF ASSAM
ROBIN PHUKAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
