Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001672025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/12/2025 Tabing Lamgu Son of Late Longya Lamgu, resident of Upper Nyorch, Yupia, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Rintu Saikia, Bomchi Taipodia,Ligam Nochi,Idak Bam,Hongmo Ete Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Sumit Chhetri BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 05-02-2025 Heard Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused, namely, Shri Tabing Lamgu, in connection with Chayangtajo P.S. Case No. 06/2024 under Sections 103(2)/238(a)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. This application was considered yesterday i.e. 04.02.2025 and this Court Page No.# 2/6 was informed that the Case Diary was already with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in connection with another bail application and accordingly, the matter has been fixed for consideration today. 3. At the outset, Shri Saikia, the learned counsel has informed this Court that on two earlier occasions, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected. He, however, informs that the second rejection was only upon withdrawal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present application is filed mainly on medical grounds. By drawing the attention of this Court to the connected pleadings in this regard, the learned counsel has referred to a certificate dated 09.01.2025, issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, TRIMMS Hospital, Naharlagun, as per which the petitioner has been referred for further treatment to the Medanta Hospital, New Delhi/AIIMS, Guwahati. 5. He has also submitted that when the first application for anticipatory bail, namely AB No. 150 (AP) of 2024 was moved, there was an interim order on 18.12.2024 and in that period the petitioner was examined by the doctors at Medanta Hospital, New Delhi, who had also advised for undergoing certain procedures for which the date has been fixed on 10.02.2025. It is submitted that the condition of the petitioner is precarious and if he does not undergo the procedure prescribed, he will have serious health complications. 6. The learned counsel has also informed that pursuant to the interim order dated 18.12.2024, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2024 and has got his statement recorded. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has Page No.# 3/6 relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, dated 12.06.2023, passed in the case of Sameer Mahandru Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023) SCC Online Del 36.6 : (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 722. In the said case, medical grounds were taken into consideration for granting of bail. He has also informed that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was unsuccessfully tested in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State. 8. Per Contra, Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. She has submitted that amongst the accused persons who are named in the FIR some of them are absconding which included the petitioner and he had appeared for the first time pursuant to the interim order dated 18.12.2024. However, after rejection of the bail on 07.01.2025, the petitioner is again absconding. She has also informed that on 28.01.2025, NBWA has been issued against the petitioner. She has submitted that in the period of interim bail as per the order dated 18.12.2024, the petitioner has also tried to influence a co-accused who is in custody and this is revealed by the statement made by the co-accused under Section 164 of the CrPC. She has also submitted that the present ground mainly on medical issues were also taken up in the earlier occasion and was considered by this court and, therefore, the same cannot constitute fresh grounds which are required to be urged in a second application praying for anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the Case Diary, while making the aforesaid submissions and also informed that on the aspect of the medical documents, which came into light recently, enquiries are being conducted for ascertaining its veracity. She has also pointed out that the document pertaining to Medanta Hospital makes it clear that the patient (petitioner) was not seen. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also referred to the decision Page No.# 4/6 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in AIR 2024 SC 1600. In the said case, it has been laid down that when a warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, an applicant would not be entitled to invoke the extraordinary power for grant of anticipatory bail and only in extreme exceptional circumstances, such a recourse may be taken. She submits that the present is not an extreme exceptional circumstance which would warrant a consideration for grant of the privilege of anticipatory bail. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on record including the Case Diary have been carefully perused. 11. This Court has noted that the FIR was lodged on 15.12.2024, in which, the name of the petitioner has been specifically mentioned as an accused. It also appears that this is the third application praying for anticipatory bail. While in the first application, AB No. 150 (AP) of 2024, an interim order was granted on 18.12.2024, the same was, however, rejected on 07.01.2025. There was another bail application being AB No. 06 (AP) of 2025 which was, however, withdrawn. 12. Be that as it may, there is an embargo in filing subsequent application for anticipatory bail and to overcome the said embargo, an applicant is required to urge fresh grounds unlike a regular bail application. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner had emphasised that the fresh ground was pertaining to the medical condition of the petitioner. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in the earlier order of rejection dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court, the aforesaid ground was not only urged but was also considered by this Court. In this regard, the Page No.# 5/6 learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention to the consideration made in Paragraph-7 of the order dated 07.01.2025. Therefore, in the strict sense, the requirement of urging fresh grounds have not been met by the petitioner. 14. Be that as it may, even on the seriousness of the ailments sought to be projected, this Court has noticed that the ailment is not a fresh one but a chronic and cannot be a ground for consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail, when the petitioner is a named accused and the offence involved is a grave one involving Sections 103(2)/238(a)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner was not examined when the report was issued by the Medanta Hospital. 15. As regards the case law cited of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, apart from the order being an order on a regular bail application, the same would only have a persuasive value on this Court. This Court has also noticed that the petitioner was found to be absconding from the date of lodging of the Ejahar and even after rejection of the first bail application on 07.01.2025 he has been absconding for which on 28.01.2025 NBWA has been issued. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant (supra), consideration of a prayer for anticipatory bail of an applicant who is absconding has to be done in a very sparing manner and on availability of an exceptional circumstances. This Court is of the opinion that no such circumstance is being able to be made out. 16. The aspect that the petitioner had tried to influence the co-accused as reflected from the statement made by the co-accused made under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be overlooked and those aspect would clearly show a misuse of the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 18.12.2024. Page No.# 6/6 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of the privilege of anticipatory bail is made out and the same stands rejected. 18. Case Diary is returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant