Allowed

Buteng Tayeng v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2020AB/3/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner, holding that custodial interrogation is unnecessary as the case diary does not prima facie implicate him in possession of arms or armed assault. Bail was granted on standard terms.

What did the court decide?

Bail bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

Buteng Tayeng Vs the State of Ap — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC040000712020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 3/2020

¶5

1:Buteng Tayeng

¶6

S/o Sri Rojak Tayeng, resident of New Jengthu village, PO/PS Namsai, dist. Namsai, AP

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP represented by the PP of AP

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : 1 U Bori

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 03-02-2020

¶15

Heard Mr. U. Bori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.

¶16

Tsering, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶17

By this application of the Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in connection with Namsai P.S Case No. 80/2019 under Sections 145/147/148/153-A/188/323/325 of the IPC R/W Sections 25(1 A)27 of the Arms Act,1959.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J. Tsering has produced the Case Diary.

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

On Perusal of the Case Diary it reflects that in course of Bandh Called on 23.11.2019, some clashes took place in between the two groups of persons and gunshot were fired. However, no arms could be seized.

¶21

It appears that the Police had recorded the statement of the complainants. The Case Diary, prima facie, do not implicate the petitioner for possession of arms or for armed assault, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary.

¶22

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed by providing that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, Sri Buteng Tayeng in connection with Namsai P.S Case No. 80/2019 under Sections 145/147/148/153-A/188/323/325 IPC read with Sections 25(1-A)/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, he shall be released on furnishing of bail bond of Rs 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

¶23

The pre-arrest bail is granted on the following terms and conditions:

¶24

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the Case within a period of 7(seven) days from today.

¶25

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquinted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts either to the police officer or to the Court.

¶26

The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation of the case as and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶27

Case diary is returned.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Buteng Tayeng v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buteng Tayeng 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Borik Perme Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Appsc Vs Shri Bharat Saring

Shri Krishna Nath Vs the State of A.P.

Smti Yaken Rome Vs Sri Praveen Kumar Singhla

M/S Arunachal Transport Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of A.P.

Shri Nabam Shelly Vs the State of A.P. and Ors.