Smti Dubi Ete Lollen v. the State of Ap

Gauhati HC5 May 2026AB/36/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court (Itanagar Bench), Case No. AB/36/2026, Smti Dubi Ete Lollen v. The State of AP, order dated 06.05.2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anjan Moni Kalita. Anticipatory bail application disposed of by making absolute the interim bail order dated 28.04.2026, with a condition that the accused applicant appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days; other bail conditions unchanged. No statute or precedent cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted vide order dated 28.04.2026 made absolute, subject to the condition that the accused applicant appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days; other terms and conditions of the interim bail remain the same. ¶¶25

Smti Dubi Ete Lollen Vs the State of Ap — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC040005742026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/36/2026

¶5

Smti Dubi Ete Lollen

¶6

D/o Shri Kido Ete, R/o Paya Village, P.O/P.S Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at D Sector, near High Court, Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF AP

¶9

represented by Public Prosecutor.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Jambey Tsering Kee, Techi Topu

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 06.05.2026

¶16

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

¶17

Vide order dated 28.04.2026, this Court allowed the interim prayer of the accused applicant and she was granted interim bail with a direction to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

when called for.

¶20

Mr. Topu, learned counsel for the accused applicant, submits that after passing of the interim order, she has never been called by the I.O. and since she is willing to cooperate with the investigation, the interim order dated 28.04.2026 should be made absolute.

¶21

On the other hand, Mr. Tado, learned Addl. P.P., submits that she has not appeared before the I.O. of the case and has not cooperated with the investigation and, therefore, opposes the bail.

¶22

Case Diary has been produced before this Court and the same is perused.

¶23

Taking into account the entire facts and the aspect that she was cooperating with the investigation prior to filing of the instant anticipatory bail application, and since she is already on interim bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim order dated 28.04.2026 should be made absolute. However, it is directed that the accused applicant shall appear before the I.O. of the case within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of passing of this order. The other terms and conditions of her interim bail, which is made absolute, shall remain the same.

¶24

Case Diary be returned.

¶25

The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Smti Dubi Ete Lollen v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Dubi Ete Lollen v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tangiat Jamoh and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Raithuibo Pamai Nepoleon Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Tai Riyang Vs the State of Ap

Achung Natung and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Nyato Riba and Anr. Vs Dammo Riba and Anr.

Tenzin Tashi Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.