Dismissed

Smti Tage Yama Dulom v. The State of Ap and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 May 2025BA/33/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS dismissed. The court held that bail granted in a related FIR was not a sole ground for release here, noting the specific threat allegation by the victim and the seriousness of the offences. Bail refused at this stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smti Tage Yama Dulom Vs The State of Ap and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040004962025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : BA/33/2025

¶5

Smti Tage Yama Dulom Wife of Late Tater Dulom, permanent resident of Dulom Village, PO and PS Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of AP and Anr through the PP of AP 2:Miss Y Age: 0 Occupation : Victi

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajesh Sonar, Michi Khambo,Binny Nyaruce,R Taku

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶10

-BEFORE-

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶12

-O R D E R-

¶13

08.05.2025

¶14

Heard Mr. R Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶15

The present application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for release

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

of the accused, namely, Sh. Terkey Dulom @ David on bail, who was arrested on 30.10.2024 and a charge-sheeted accused in connection with LDG/PS/Case No. 48/2024 pending trial before the learned Special Judge (POCS), Khonsa Sessions Division, Tirap District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶18

The genesis and the background of the case is that as many as four FIRs were lodged by different victims and one of such FIR was registered as LDG/PS/Case No. 48/2024 under Section 64/96/143(1)(f)/61(1)(a)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 3/5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶19

The allegation levelled is that the co-accused wife of the petitioner/accused is running a bar cum restaurant at Itanagar and she contacted the victims to do job for salary of Rs. 7,000/- with free lodging and food. Most of the informants are minor in age and they are school dropouts. On the promise of such job, they joined as waiters in the restaurant cum bar belonging to the wife of the present petitioner/ accused and according to them they were forced to wear indecent dress and make up to satisfy the customers coming to the bar and were also asked to dance and were forced to have sex with some customers. It is the specific case of the informant in the present case that the present petitioner/ accused raped her. Three of the victims were planning to flee away from the restaurant, however, another co-accused, namely, Lily, a lady was brought to the restaurant by the wife of the petitioner and she introduced herself to be a police official and threatened that if they try to flee away, they will be punished and Lily will find out them from any place. According to the victim, hearing this, they cancelled the plane of fleeing away from the restaurant, however, one night around 3 a.m. when everyone was drunk and were enjoying, they slowly left the DJ room and came from the restaurant and reached their residences.

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

Subsequently, the informant came to know that some of the other victims had lodged FIR and therefore, she talked to her other friends and decided to speak up and came to Longding and met workers of CWC, Longding. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

¶22

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the other cases the petitioner/ accused has been granted bail by the learned Session Judge and therefore for the similar offences, the petitioner should not be detained.

¶23

This court has perused the order passed in BA 172/2024 arising out of LDG/PS/Case No. 39/2024, which was lodged by another victim and perusal of the aforesaid order, it is seen that the learned trial court granted bail to the petitioner taking note of the statement of the victim girl and the finding that there is no allegation against the victim in the statement recorded under Section 183(5) of BNSS, 2023.

¶24

This court has also perused the statement of the present victim, which goes to show that she had specifically implicated the petitioner/ accused. Therefore, grant of bail to the petitioner/ accused in the aforesaid case lodged by the another victim cannot be the sole ground of granting bail to the petitioner/ accused.

¶25

This court cannot be unmindful of the individual liberty of the accused person, however, at the same time while considering the prayer of the petitioner/ accused for grant of bail, this court cannot be unmindful of the material available on record. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, docity etc. once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining witnesses, the court should be loath in entertaining bail application of an accuse. This court cannot also unmindful of the fact that no charges has been

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

framed as yet and the victim is not yet examined inasmuch as the victim herself has alleged threat during the commission of offence by the accused and others accused involved in the case.

¶28

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, more particularly, taking note of the seriousness and magnitude of the offences and the conduct of the accused, this is not a fit case to exercise its discretionary power under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. Accordingly, same stands dismissed at this stage.

¶29

However, parting with the record, it is made clear that the observation made herein is for the purpose of consideration of the bail application and same shall not be treated as comment on the merit of the case, either of the prosecution or the defence.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Smti Tage Yama Dulom v. The State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smti Tage Yama Dulom v. The State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarh Tayang Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Nyasam Jongsam Vs Tesam Pongte and 2 Ors.

Dani Tatung Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Hayeng Mangfi Vs Kompu Dolo

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rakhe Tallar and 2 Ors.

The Bajaz Allianz General Insurance Compnay Limited Vs Rakhe Tallar and 2 Ors.