Allowed¶27

Shri Temjenyapang v. the State of Nagaland and Anr.

Gauhati HC10 Mar 2026I.A.(Crl.)/13/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail extension; interim/medical bail; Section 430 BNSS; gallbladder stone operation deferred pending stabilisation; Hepatitis-C; High Blood Pressure; enlarged prostate; CIHSR Dimapur; 60-day extension; surrender before jail authorities; Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench; I.A.(Crl.)/13/2026; prior order dated 11.02.2026 in I.A.(Crl.)/39/2025; Temjenyapang; State of Nagaland; Childline Dimapur; decision dated 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Extension of the bail granted vide Order dated 11.02.2026 by another 60 (sixty) days, with the applicant to surrender before the jail authorities on completion of 60 days from the date of this order. ¶27

Shri Temjenyapang Vs the State of Nagaland and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Extension of the bail granted vide Order dated 11.02.2026 by another 60 (sixty) days, with the applicant to surrender before the jail authorities on completion of 60 days from the date of this order.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the 30-day bail granted to the applicant by Order dated 11.02.2026 in I.A.(Crl.)/39/2025, expiring on 15.03.2026, should be extended further in view of the applicant's health condition.

¶17

Court's answer

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the Public Prosecutor, and having perused the medical certificates annexed with the application, the Court allowed the application in view of the health condition of the applicant.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The bail granted vide Order dated 11.02.2026 was extended by another 60 (sixty) days, and the applicant was directed to surrender before the jail authorities on completion of 60 days from the date of this order.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench - I.A.(Crl.)/13/2026, decided 11.03.2026 (coram: Kardak Ete and Yarenjungla Longkumer, JJ.). Application under Section 430, BNSS seeking extension of the 30-day bail granted by Order dated 11.02.2026 in I.A.(Crl.)/39/2025 to enable the applicant to undergo gallbladder stone operation, which bail was to expire on 15.03.2026. Applicant produced medical certificates from CIHSR, Dimapur showing treatment for Hepatitis-C, High Blood Pressure and enlarged prostate, with doctors advising stabilisation of these conditions before (laparoscopic) surgery and prescribing one month's medication. The learned Public Prosecutor objected, submitting that the medication could be taken inside jail and that the applicant should surrender on 15.03.2026 as earlier directed. Considering the submissions and the medical certificates, and in view of the applicant's health condition, the Court allowed the application and extended the bail by another 60 (sixty) days, directing the applicant to surrender before the jail authorities on completion of 60 days from the date of the order.

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC020001462026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/13/2026

¶5

SHRI TEMJENYAPANG S/O LATE KORALIBA, R/O NOTUN BASTI, DIMAPUR - 787112

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR NAGALAND

¶8

2:K. ELA COLLAB DIRECTOR (CHILDLINE DIMAPUR) 78711

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : JAMES NEWMAI,

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONBLE MR JUSTICE KARDAK ETE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

O R D E R

11.03.2026

(Y. Longkumer, J)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Mr. Taka Kichu.

¶17

2. The instant application under Section 430, BNSS has been filed praying for extension of the bail granted to the applicant by this Court

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

vide Order dated 11.02.2026 in I.A.(Crl.)/39/2025 by which the appellant/applicant was granted 30 (thirty) days bail in order to undergo gallbladder stone operation.

¶20

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Mr. Taka Kichu.

¶21

4. The applicant states that subsequent to the Order dated 11.02.2026, passed by this Court in I.A.(Crl.)/39/2025, the applicant had approached the doctors at CIHSR, Dimapur. The medical certificates have been annexed in the application, which shows that the applicant is undergoing treatment for Hepatitis-C, High Blood Pressure and enlarged prostate and, as such, the doctor has recommended that these conditions need to be stabilized foremost before any surgery could be conducted (more particularly to perform laparoscopic surgery to remove gallbladder stone); accordingly, the applicant has been given medicine for one month to stabilize the same, which is to be evaluated in a month’s time to ascertain the applicant’s health condition to undergo the procedure.

¶22

5. It is, therefore, prayed that the bail granted by this Court may be extended further as the 30 (thirty) days granted by this Court expires on 15.03.2026.

¶23

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, Ms. Livika is present and she has objected to the application by submitting that the applicant is to undergo medication for a month, which can be taken inside the jail premises and, therefore, prays that on completion of the one month of the medication period, the applicant is at liberty to approach this Court with an

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

application for bail again and, therefore, prays that the present application may be rejected at this stage and the applicant may be directed to surrender before the Jail authorities on 15.03.2026 as directed by Order dated 11.02.2026.

¶26

7. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and the Public Prosecutor and have perused the medical certificates, which are annexed with the application and in view of the health condition of the applicant, the application is allowed.

¶27

8. Bail granted vide Order dated 11.02.2026 is further extended by another 60 (sixty) days. The applicant shall accordingly, surrender before the jail authorities on completion of 60 days from today.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Shri Temjenyapang v. the State of Nagaland and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Temjenyapang v. the State of Nagaland and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Shri Thungbemo and 5 Ors.

Besupralu Swuro Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Kikrukhonuo Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Late Kaohai Represented by Legal Representative Smti. Tongphe Vs State of Nagaland and 8 Ors.