Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040009742025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/24/2025 Mrs Rosy Singpho Wife of Shri Ongla Singpho, Inspector, Women Police Station, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 VERSUS Bengia Tapang and 3 Ors Son of Late Bengia Talum, resident of Lobi II, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 2:The State of AP Age: 0 Occupation : through the Commissioner(Home) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 3:The Director General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 4:The Superintendent of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Capital Complex Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Parswajyoti Das Nair, Techi Topu,Khogen Bui Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Millo Komo,Bengia Tayu,Khoda Tari Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 03.11.2025 ((B. Habung, J) Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. K. Tari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was respondent No. 4 (the Investigating Officer) in WP(C) Case No. 86(AP)/2021. 3. By this writ appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Case No. 86(AP)/2021, whereby the present appellant, being respondent No. 4, was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the present respondent No. 1, who was the writ petitioner in the aforesaid case. The said liability was imposed personally on the present appellant, with a further direction to the department to deduct the amount from her salary in case of default. 4. The learned Single Judge further recommended that the department initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against respondent No. 4/the present appellant. The above direction was issued as respondent No. 4/the present appellant was alleged to have arrested the writ petitioner/present respondent No. 1 despite an order of interim protection granted to the respondent No. 1 in AB Case No. 50(AP)/2021. Page No.# 3/5 5. The contention of the appellant is that the writ petitioner did not visit the Women Police Station on 09.02.2021, however, he produced the bail order through one Lokam Mone. The writ petitioner appeared on 10.02.2021, on his appearance he was formally arrested. However, the writ petitioner failed to furnish the bail bond or deposit the bail amount till the evening due to which he was forwarded to Hospital for medical examination and on the next date on 12.02.2021 he was produced before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate where also he failed to satisfy the bail condition as a result he was remanded to judicial custody. As such, there was no violation of the directions contained in the interim bail order. 6. However, on 23.09.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that efforts were being made to settle the issue between the parties and accordingly, a prayer for time was granted. 7. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, it was submitted at the Bar that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement. The learned counsel for the appellant expressed his willingness to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) before this Court within 15 days from today. However, he prayed that, since there was no prayer in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge for initiation of departmental proceedings against the appellant, the said direction against the petitioner may be dropped. He further submitted that no departmental proceeding so far has been initiated against the appellant. 8. Mr. Tari, learned counsel for the present respondent No. 1/writ petitioner submitted that, conceded to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no prayer in WP(C) No. 86(AP)/2021 for initiation of departmental proceedings, and further submitted that, if the compensation Page No.# 4/5 amount is deposited and the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is allowed to withdraw the same, he has further instructions not to press for initiation of departmental proceedings against the present appellant. 9. In this regard, Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, upon instructions, submitted that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the appellant till date and that the State has no objection if the direction regarding initiation of such departmental proceedings against the appellant is set aside, in view of the settlement between the parties. He further submitted that, in the writ petition, the State and the present appellant on one side against the writ petitioner having been made party respondents in WP(C) No. 86(AP)/2021. 10. In view of the above consensual stand of all the parties, and considering that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the present appellant till date, and without going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to modify the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Case No. 86(AP)/2021 to the extent indicated hereinbelow: i. The appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) before the Registry of this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ii. Upon such deposit being made, the writ petitioner/present respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount on proper identification and upon following the due process of verification as notified by the Registry of this Court from time to time. iii. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge for initiation of departmental proceedings against the present appellant/respondent No. 4 Page No.# 5/5 in WP(C) Case No. 86(AP)/2021 by order dated 22.05.2025 is hereby set aside. iv. Since no such departmental proceeding has been initiated till date, no departmental proceeding shall now be initiated against the present appellant/respondent No. 4, subject to compliance with condition No. (i) above, i.e., deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) before the Registry of this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. The impugned order dated 22.05.2025 shall stand modified to the extent stated above. However, it is made clear that in the event of failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, this Court’s order shall stand cancelled, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.05.2025 shall be revived in its entirety. 12. With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant