Allowed

Tada @ Lamda Dong v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC1 Apr 2022AB/39/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant under section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that FIR allegations regarding criminal conspiracy and damage to public property were not prima facie made out and no mischief was apparent under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with a local surety of like amount.

Tada @ Lamda Dong Vs the State of Ap — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040003672022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB 39/2022

¶5

1:Tada @ Lamda Dong S/o Late Talam Dong,

¶6

A Residence of Lily Dong Village, PO/PS Raga, District Kamle, Arunachal Pradesh

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF AP Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Topu

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A M BUJOR BARUA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 01.04.2022

¶15

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

¶16

This application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for pre-arrest bail is made upon apprehension of arrest in connection with Raga P.S. Case No. 4/2022 under section 447/120(B)/34 IPC as well as under section 3 of the

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶19

The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that the petitioner Tada @ Lamda Dong had threatened to destroy the inaugural pillar of ADC (Independent) Gepen by claiming that the land donated for the ADC (Independent) Gepen by Gigi and Gepen public belongs to his forefathers though they had migrated to their present settlement somewhere between the year 1965–1970. Accordingly, it is the allegation that the petitioner Tada @ Lamda Dong had created a ruckus at the scene and that there can be a criminal conspiracy in furtherance of their common intention to destroy the pillar, which could be inferred from the Kebang circular dated 10.12.2021.

¶20

Accordingly, the case is registered under section 447 IPC read with section 120(B)/34 IPC as well as section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶21

Section 447 IPC is for criminal trespass, where criminal trespass means whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, an offence of criminal trespass is made out. In the instant case, there is no indication that the property over which the alleged offence took place was the property in possession of another person. Section 120(B) of the IPC provides for an offence of criminal conspiracy in respect of any offence for which no express provision is made for the Court.

¶22

The allegation in the FIR that it was a clear case of pre-planned act and that it can be a criminal conspiracy in furtherance of common intention to destroy the pillar also not prima facie made out from the FIR. Thirdly, there

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

does not prima facie appear to be any mischief being committed by the petitioner in respect of any building, installation or other property or oil installations, sewage works, mine or factory or any means of public transportation or of tele-communication, or any building installation or other property used in connection therewith so as to attract the provisions of section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶25

Accordingly, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail in connection with Raga P.S. Case No.4/2022 under section 447/120(B)/34 IPC as well as under section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶26

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Raga P.S. Case No.4/2022, the arresting authority shall release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with a local surety of like amount.

¶27

Bail petition is allowed as indicated above.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Tada @ Lamda Dong v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tada @ Lamda Dong 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

Srk-Tk (Jv) Vs The Chief Engineer (Highway)

Srk Constructions and Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Chief Engineer (Highways)

Srk-Tk (Jv) Vs The Chief Engineer (Highway)

Majim Jaboju Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Yatung Thama Vs the State of Ap

Gem Dopum Vs The State of Ap and Others