Allowed

Bhabesh Tanti v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC4 Nov 2024Crl.Petn./189/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to modify bail conditions of an accused detenue who could not produce a local surety from Arunachal Pradesh. Court observed the accused had been in custody over 300 days and allowed modification to varying surety amounts and location requirements while maintaining attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail order dated 04.10.2024 modified; accused released upon execution of new bail bond with varied conditions.

Bhabesh Tanti Vs The State of Ap — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040014822024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./189/2024

¶5

Bhabesh Tanti

¶6

Son of Shri Nadeswar Tanti, resident of Kalakhowa Village, Po and PS Bokakhat, Golaghat District, Assam

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Adam Tatak, Logsang Yountan,Tanur Gao,Tsering Gyatso

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 05-11-2024

¶14

Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

This is an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

¶16

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023 praying for alteration and modification of the bail order dated 04.10.2024, passed by this Court in

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

BA No. 93(AP)/2024.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that the accused Shri Ananta Tanti, who was arrested in connection with Session Case No. 08/2019 arising out of Seijosa P.S. Case No. 10/2017 registered under Section 302/34 IPC, was granted bail by this Court by order dated 04.10.2024 and directed to release the accused on execution of bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with 2 surety of like amount, one of which should be a resident of Arunachal Pradesh with further condition that the accused person shall cooperate and appear before the trial court regularly.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is a permanent residence of Assam. He is ready to furnish a bail bond along with a surety with landed property at Assam; however, he is unable to produce the surety who is a resident of Arunachal Pradesh even after expiry of 1(one) month from the date of passing of the said bail order. And hence, prays for alteration and modification of the said bail condition of the bail order dated 04.10.2024.

¶21

Ms T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the accused after obtaining bail was evading the trial proceeding and remained absconding for about 5(five) years due to which he was issued NBWA against him resulting his arrest. And since, the accused person belong to outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh, there is every possibility that he might jump bail and remain absconding again. And hence, the bail condition with one of the sureties to be the resident of

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

Arunachal Pradesh is fair and reasonable in order to secure his attendance for trial of the case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that surety imposed only meant to be a resident of Arunachal Pradesh and not asking for a local surety, either permanent or temporary as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.

¶25

It appears that the accused person was arrested earlier and then released on bail. However, for his non-appearance, he was again arrested in execution of Non Bailable Arrest Warrant issued against him and since then he has been inside the custody for more than 300 days. Considering that the accused has spent a considerably long period inside the custody after his re-arrest and also considering that even after expiry of 1(one) month, the accused could not execute the bail bond and produce surety from the resident of Arunachal Pradesh which indicates that he is unable to produce the same, I am of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner can be considered.

¶26

Accordingly, the accused is directed to be released on execution of bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with 2(two) sureties of like amounts, one of which shall be with proper landed property with a further condition that the accused shall cooperate and appear before the trial court regularly/ as and when called for.

¶27

With the above observation, the bail order dated 04.10.2024

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

passed by this Court in BA No.93 (AP)/2024, stands modified as indicated above.

¶30

Accordingly, this criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Bhabesh Tanti v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabesh Tanti 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

Mating Kanu Vs The Deputy Commissioner and 3 Ors.

Basit Uddin Vs The State of Ap

Kento Eshi Vs The State of Ap and 15 Ors.

Jomkar Loyi Vs Tojo Ete and 2 Ors.

Miss Assaya Umbrey Vs The State of Ap

Smti Susmita Kumari Roy Vs The State of Ap