Applicant sought pre-arrest bail under BNSS Section 482 in a BNS Section 69 case. Having complied with interim bail conditions and cooperated with the Investigating Officer, the interim pre-arrest bail order was made absolute on the same terms and the application disposed of.
Interim pre-arrest bail dated 04.03.2025 made absolute on same terms and conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC040003222025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB/24/2025
Saurabh Sahu
Son of Shri Gopal Sahu, resident of Vivek Nagar, Kabrai, Block Kabrai, Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh. 210424
VERSUS
The State of AP through the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : J Tsering, Gotu Riba,Tayom Gamoh,Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally,Tsering Gyatso
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Tem Pahi,Likha Kagung,Tokdak Tamin,Taba Topu
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 02-04-2025
Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel for the victim/informant.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant in connection with the Itanagar
Page No.# 2/4
Women Police Station Case No. 02/2025, under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023.
3. At the outset, Mr. Tsering, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the interim order, dated 04.03.2025, passed by this Court, wherein, the Court had enlarged the present accused applicant on interim pre-arrest bail with 3 (three) conditions:
“ ...(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 7(seven) days.
(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, without prior permission.”
4. The matter was listed again on 13.03.2025, on which date, the interim order was further extended till the next date, i.e. on 02.04.2025 and accordingly, the matter has come up today for final hearing.
5. The learned counsel for the accused applicant has stated that all the 3 (three) conditions set by this Court has been complied with by the accused applicant, inasmuch as, he has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 2 (two) occasions, i.e. on 24.03.2025 and 25.03.2025 and he has also filed an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was taken up on 27.03.2025 and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Yupia, was pleased to allow the accused applicant to leave the jurisdiction of the Court with a condition that he shall cooperate in the ongoing investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when, called for. It is accordingly, prayed
Page No.# 3/4
that the interim pre-arrest bail granted on 04.03.2025 may be made absolute.
6. Ms. Hage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that in view of the seriousness of the case and also in view of the fact that previously there is a prima facie case of the accused applicant tampering with the digital evidence, stringent conditions may be imposed by this Court.
7. Mr. Topu, learned counsel appearing before the victim/informant, has also prayed that in case the Court is inclined to regularise the interim bail, stringent conditions may be imposed so that the accused applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer and the Court, as and when required.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and it is observed that the accused applicant has been cooperating with the Investigating Officer till date and it is also seen that the 3 (three) conditions which have been imposed by this Court vide the interim order, dated 04.03.2025, has not been violated in any way by the accused applicant. It is also seen that the learned Court of the JMFC, Yupia, by an order dated 27.03.2025 has allowed the accused applicant to leave the jurisdiction of the Court with the condition that he shall cooperate in the investigation and appear before the I.O., as and when, called for. The learned Trial Court also observed that the accused applicant had appeared before the I.O. on 24.03.2025 and 25.03.2025 and his statements have been accordingly recorded.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the interim order, dated 04.03.2025 is hereby, made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
10. If the accused applicant violates any of the conditions set forth by this
Page No.# 4/4
Court, it may be deemed as a violation of the pre-arrest bail granted.
11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of, on the terms as stated above.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant should be made absolute given compliance with the interim conditions and cooperation with the investigation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saurabh Sahu
The State of AP through the PP of AP
Yarenjungla Longkumer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
