Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010150732025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1614/2025 SHRI TILLING SAMBYO S/O- LATE TILLING HOGO. R/O- HONG VILLAGE PO AND PS -ZIRO, DISTRICT- LOWER SUBANSIRI, ARUNACHAL PRADESH VERSUS STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ARUNACHAL PRADESH. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BISWAKARMA, MR T. TATAK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Biswakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chandran, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Tilling Sambyo, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with SIC (VIG) PS, Itanagar Case No. 05/2013 under Sections 120(B)/468/471/409 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Page No.# 2/2 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 27.05.2013, an FIR has been lodged against the petitioner by one RTI activist alleging that he has dishonestly misappropriated the Government funds. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been co-operating in the investigation since 2013, however, recently the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has issued an order dated 12th of March, 2025 under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereby the Inspector of Police in the Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Vigilance Department have been empowered to make arrest without warrant and, therefore, the petitioner is apprehending that he may be arrested in connection with this case. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh has produced a letter dated 13th July, 2025 by the Deputy SP-cum-Officer-in-charge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Itanagar whereby it is intimated that the investigation in this case has already been completed and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the accused persons including the petitioner. 6. In view of the above latter, it appears that there is no apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested in connection with SIC (VIG) PS, Itanagar Case No. 05/2013. 7. As there is no apprehension, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, this case is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant