Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003722025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/25/2025 Saurabh Sahu Son of Shri Gopal Sahu, resident of Vivek Nagar, Kabrai, Block Kabrai, Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh. 210424 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Sonam Tsomo, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA 13.03.2025 Heard Ms. S. Tsomo, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. PP for the State and Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel appearing for the informant. This is an application praying for alteration and modification of bail order dated 04.03.2025 passed by this Court in connection with AB No. 24 (AP)2025. Page No.# 2/4 It is submitted by Ms. Tsomo, learned counsel for the application that while complying with the conditions of bail granted on 04.03.2025, the present applicant was supposed to appear before the Itanagar Women Police Station to record his statement for interrogation but after obtaining the bail order, he received some audio, video clip and death threat from the informant, wherein, he was threatened with dire consequences, if he comes to Arunachal Pradesh. Further, she submitted that to appear before the I.O. he also booked the ticket on 10.03.2025 and the schedule date was on 11.03.2025 but due to such correspondence and life threat messages from the informant side, he could not appear before the I.O., though he was asked to appear before the I.O. within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of order i.e. 04.03.2025. She further submitted that the informant is however ready to appear before the I.O. and to co- operate with the investigation but from the life threat messages, he is not in a position to appear before the I.O. Accordingly, prayed for alteration/modification of the condition No. 1 and the I.O. may record his statement in other alternative location or through virtual mode. She further submitted that the applicant is ready to bear the expenses of the I.O., if his statement is recorded in any other location except the jurisdiction of Itanagar Women Police Station. Ms. T. Jini, learned Addl. PP submitted, in this regard, that the order of bail was passed by this Court on 04.03.2025, wherein, the applicant was directed to appear before the I.O. within 7 (seven) days and by 10.03.2025, the limitation to appear before the I.O. has expired but he intentionally booked the ticket only on 10.03.2025 and the schedule date for his travel was on 11.03.2025. Further, she submitted that as per Page No.# 3/4 condition No. 3, the applicant was asked not to leave the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, without prior permission but from the present application, it reveals that the applicant is not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. She further submitted that the prayer for recording of his statement through virtual mode cannot be allowed, however, the I.O. make an arrangement for his security to bring him from Airport/ Railway Station to record his statement considering his life threat. Ms. Jini, further submitted that on the day, when the applicant was granted interim pre-arrest bail i.e. on 04.03.2025, he lodged an FIR before the Kabrai Police Station with some allegations of extortion of money and also with regard to threatening to kill him but there is no mention that he was threatened by the informant side to come to Arunachal Pradesh under the jurisdiction and from the timing of filing of the FIR, it is seen that the FIR was filed before granting of bail but there is no where mention about the life threat to him if he comes to Arunachal Pradesh or to the Jurisdictional Police Station. Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that he did not receive any information/ instruction from his client in regards to threatening of the present applicant and as per his instruction there is no such messages of threatening from the informant side if the present applicant appears before the jurisdictional police station obeying the condition of the bail order. Considering the entire circumstances of the case and hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, the interim pre-arrest bail dated 04.03.2025 is hereby extended for another 15 (fifteen) days i.e. till 28.03.2025 and the applicant is accordingly directed to appear before the Page No.# 4/4 I.O. and if any situation arises in regards to threatening of his life, he may communicate the same to the I.O. and who may arrange necessary security to the applicant to record his statement in any convenient place of the I.O. However, at this stage, I do not find it necessary to alter/modify the condition No. 1. In view of the above, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant