Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040017712025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/160/2025 Nabam Tadik Son of Shri Nabam Ratung, a resident of Rupung Village, Leporiang Circle, PO and PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Nabam Saha, G.C Taba Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 27.11.2025 Heard Mr. N. Saha, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking of privilege of pre-arrest bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 71/2025, registered under Sections 316(2) /318(4)/ 324(5) of the BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/3 3. By order dated 27.10.2025, this Court, while calling for the Case Diary, granted interim anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant and directed that, in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail upon his executing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only, with one surety of like amount, with a further direction that he shall cooperate and appear before the I.O. of the case within 10 (ten) days. 4. In compliance with the said direction, the accused/applicant appeared before the I.O of the case on 30.10.2025. The Case Diary reflect that upon his such appearance, the accused/applicant was formally arrested in connection with the above Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 71/2025, recorded his statement, and after completion of the requisite formalities, he was released on bail on the strength of the interim anticipatory bail order dated 27.10.2025. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor referring to the record submits that after obtaining interim anticipatory bail, the accused/applicant is stated to have been cooperating with the I.O of the case for investigation, and he appeared before the I.O. The I.O in the Case Diary has noted that although the accused/applicant did appear and was arrested and released on bail, he has not been cooperating regarding certain facts, and therefore, sought for custodial interrogation. 6. I have considered the nature of the allegations. The allegation pertains to the accused/applicant having retained certain local ornaments entrusted to him when the owner was minor, and upon return after about 17 (seventeen) years, the ornaments were allegedly found replaced with fake articles. 7. It is not disputed that the accused/applicant has already appeared, he has been arrested, interrogated, and thereafter, released on bail. When the Page No.# 3/3 accused/applicant has already been subjected to arrest and interrogation pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the request of I.O for custodial interrogation at this stage does not appear justified on the facts recorded. 8. As the accused/applicant has cooperated with the investigation and continues to be under the obligation to do so. No further custodial interrogation is found necessary at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the accused/applicant on 27.10.2025, is hereby made absolute subject to the same terms and conditions as contained in the earlier order and the following additional conditions: (i) that the applicant shall continue to cooperate with the investigation as and when required by the I.O of the case; (ii) that the applicant shall not tamper with evidences or influence witnesses in any manner. 10. With the above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant