Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23830 (GAU)

Karam Dugi v. The State of AP

AB/158/2025 · 2025-11-19

Budi Habung

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040017492025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/158/2025 Karam Dugi Son of Late Taka Dugi, resident of Near Aruna Daya School, H Sector Itanagar, Ganga, Ram Krishna Mission, PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and camp address at Near Shiv Mandir Bonda, Narengi, Forest Camp, Guwahati 26, Assam VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : A K Purkayastha, Dusu Rillung,Suraj Sharma Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 20.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Duksor Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Itanagar Capital Complex Police Station Case No. 72/2025 registered under section 111(2)(b)/(3)/(6) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and section 25(1)(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act. Page No.# 2/3 3. The petitioner has filed this application on the ground of alleged change in circumstances. Earlier, the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in connection with the same PS case was rejected by this Court 16.06.2025, taking noted of the gravity of allegations, his alleged involvement in illegal procurement of arms from militant sources and his conduct of absconding. 4. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation of the case has now been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted without implicating the petitioner as an accused. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the polica personnel continue to visit his house enquiring about his absconding son, and therefore the petitioner apprehend his arrest. He contends that while submitting the charge-sheet, the investigating officer made a remark that “the accused procured firearms from a militant source (Libemo T. Kithan, NSCN –KY) and supplied one pistol to accused Tapa Nungnu and another to Aman Dugi(son of the petitioner) who is presently absconding. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, on the other hand, submits that after thorough investigation, the case has already been submitted in the charge-sheet and the petitioner is neither a named accused nor a charge- sheeted accused, nor, is he cited as a witness in the case. It is further submitted that no arrest of the petitioner is contemplated in the said case. Mr. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, accordingly, submits that this bail application is pre-mature and not maintainable. 6. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable when the petitioner is not an accused in the case and no arrest is contemplated against him. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be invoked to grant anticipatory bail to a person who is not Page No.# 3/3 booked in any criminal proceeding. 7. The fact that the police are visiting the petitioner’s residence in connection with the search of any absconding accused, who happens to be the petitioner’s son, does not confer a right upon the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail. 8. However, to ensure that the petitioner is not unnecessarily harassed, it is clarified that the police are within their rights to trace an absconding accused, but, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner unless any material emerges showing his involvement and a case is formally registered against him in accordance with law. 9. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court if and when any fresh case is registered implicating him. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 11. With the above observations, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant