Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040002672025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/18/2025 Tenzing Chukla Son of Shri Pema Chukla, resident of Village Yorni, PO and PS Mechuka, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Mukesh Prasad, Jumnya Rina,H Dirchi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Liinked Case : AB/16/2025 Sange Chukla Son of Shri Pema Chukla, resident of Village Yorni, Po and PS Mechuka, Shi Yomi Dsitrict, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Mukesh Prasad, H Dirchi Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Idak Bam,Ligam Nochi,Rintu Saikia Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 19-03-2025 This is a common order for these two cases as they are arisen out of same FIR. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. S. Sharma, appearing for the applicants. I have also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2. These bail applications have been filed under Section 482 of the BNNS, 2023 praying for interim pre-arrest bail in connection with Mechuka P.S. Case No. 01/2025 under Sections 333/115(2)/3(5)/140(3)/127 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. 3. This Court, on 19.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, had granted interim bail to the petitioners and pursuant to the interim orders, the petitioners have appeared before the investigating officer and recorded their statement. 4. On 07.03.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the informant raised objection to the interim bail granted to the petitioners. Consequently, this Court directed the investigating officer to submit a detailed report as to whether there has been any violation of the bail terms and conditions. 5. Today, Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the detailed report received from the investigating officer. 6. On plain reading of the report, it appears that there has been no violation Page No.# 3/3 of the interim bail conditions granted by this Court. It also appears that there is a clash between two different communities, with each side attempting to justify their actions and levelling allegations against the other. 7. Mr. I. Bam, learned counsel for the informant, who had previously objected to the interim bail granted to the petitioners has requested for some time to submit his arguments. However, this request is denied, as the informant’s role is limited to assisting the Public Prosecutor only. The informant does not have individual interest in such matter. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 9. The purpose of judicial custody is to facilitate investigation. If an accused person is cooperating with the investigation, there is no justification for their continued detention and in the present bail applications, it is seen that the applicants are cooperating with the investigation. Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed and the interim bail granted on 19.02.2025 and 21.02.2025 are made absolute with the further condition that the applicants shall appear before the investigating officer of the case as well as before the Court for trial as and when called for. 10. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant