ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 17th December, 2021, passed by the Gauhati High Court on an application filed by him¹ [under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’] seeking regular bail in Sootia Excise Circle Case No. 181/2021-22² [registered under Section 53(1)(a) of the Assam Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018]. The High Court has expressed a view that appropriate legal action ought to be initiated against the appellant and those who had tried to misuse the process of law by filing application for bail in two different fora in respect of the very same crime.

3. It may be noted as a background that a bail application was filed by the appellant before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biswanath Chariali on 27th October, 2021 in connection with the same case which was rejected.

4. The first bail application moved by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed.³ [on 11th November, 2021] In the second bail application moved by the appellant⁴ [on 24th November, 2021] notice was issued and the High Court had called for the records on 30th November, 2021.

5. On 01st December, 2021, without awaiting the outcome of the pending application for bail moved by the appellant before the High Court, another application seeking the same relief was moved on his behalf before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vishwanath Chariali.

6. The application for bail on 01st December, 2021 was allowed on the same day by the trial Court.⁵ [as per the impugned order the bail was granted on 06.12.2021]. All these factors came to the knowledge of the High Court only on 08th December, 2021, when a report was received from the Registrar (Judicial) who was directed to conduct an inquiry into the matter. This was followed by passing of the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant belongs to the Tea Tribe community in Assam and lives in a village where he ekes out a living as a cycle mechanic and his brother who was his pairokar, runs a small shop in the village. He submits that while the appellant was in custody, it was his brother who was pursuing the matter on his behalf and due to a bona fide lack of understanding of the procedures involved, he moved another application for bail on behalf of the appellant without realizing that earlier thereto, an application filed by him for the same relief was still pending before the High Court.

8. Having regard to the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant for the aforesaid conduct, and in view of the explanation offered, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, calling upon the Registrar (Judicial) to file an appropriate FIR/complaint against the appellant in the matter.

9. The appeal is disposed of while cautioning the appellant to be very careful in future. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.