Allowed

Tacha Chunga v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC4 Apr 2022AB/35/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court granted the benefit of bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety of like amount in the event of the applicant's arrest in a case involving altercation, alleged shooting, and illegal possession of arms.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed; release on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount.

Tacha Chunga Vs the State of Ap — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040003552022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 35/2022

¶5

1:Tacha Chunga S/o Lt. Tacha Tapuk, Village Palap, PO/PS Balijan, District Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh. Phone No. 919362728272

¶6

VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP Through Public Prosecutor

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Vijay Jamoh

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶9

Page No.# 2/3

¶10

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A M BUJOR BARUA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 04-04-2022

¶13

Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. U. Bori, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶14

This is an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is in respect of the FIR dated 01.03.2022, before the officer-in-charge, Balijan, Police Station resulting in the registration of Balijan, P.S Case No. 03/2022, under Sections 324/336/447/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959.

¶15

A reading of the FIR prima facie indicates that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the informant regarding the ownership of certain land. There is an allegation that in the year 2014, the petitioner shot the father of the informant with a 12 Bore Gun without any valid reasons. The allegation is also that the petitioner has killed many animals like mithuns, pigs etc. with a gun without any license and that the petitioner is using several guns without any valid license. Further allegation is that on 28.02.2022, at around 8 AM, the petitioner started firing at the person called Shri Bida Teron with a gun, who is a manual labour. No injury report is indicated of any person resulting any injury from such gun shots.

¶16

It is stated that the petitioner having exposed the gun, he had committed offence prescribed under the Arms Act, therefore liable for prosecution under Section 27(1) of the said Act. The petitioner on the other hand denies the

¶17

Page No.# 3/3

¶18

possession of any gun.

¶19

Considering the materials available in the Case Diary, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the benefit of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Balijan, P.S Case No. 03/2022, under Sections 324/336/447/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959, he be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

¶20

Bail petition stands allowed as indicated above. Return the Case Diary immediately.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Comparing Assistant

Tacha Chunga v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tacha Chunga 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

Majim Jaboju Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Tada @ Lamda Dong Vs the State of Ap

Yatung Thama Vs the State of Ap

Pisa Tabin and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Ap and 2 Ors.

M/s Ragia Ku Enterprise Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Kento Eshi (Ori) Vs the State of Ap and 6 Ors.