Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040005112025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/38/2025 Tagru Suraj Son of Late Tagru Tassar, resident of Village Chimpu, PO and PS Chimpu, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Orin Modi, Duram Miyu,Ajit Bonia,Noni Nobeng,Pura Khongkhung Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 09/04/2025 This Court had granted an interim order bail to the accused/applicant, Shri. Tagru Suraj on 01.04.2025. The matter has come up for final hearing today. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. D. Loyi has produced the case diary and Court has perused the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the interim order was passed on 01.04.2025 he has appeared before Page No.# 2/5 the I.O. on 03.04.2025 and 06.04.2025 and has executed the bail bond as directed by this Court. Thereafter, his statement has been recorded by the I.O. on 03.04.2025 and 06.04.2025. Accordingly, it is stated that he has complied with the directions of this Court and prays that the interim order may be made absolute and he may be allowed to go on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and he is drawn the attention of this Court to the observation of the I.O. of the case, who has stated in his letter dated 08.04.2025 to the learned P.P. that the applicant, who is presently on interim bail should not threaten or coerce the witness at any stage of investigation if he obtains the bail. It is also stated that the investigation is at an early stage and it is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy of the offence. It is also stated that the investigation till date has not revealed the active role of the applicant and he has not been alleged to directly fire the weapon. However, the indirect involvement in conspiracy/abatement of the offence cannot be denied at this stage of investigation. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore has not objected to the bail application provided that the court shall impose some stringent condition so that the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. A. Bodo has made appearance on behalf of six of the victims in this case and he has filed an I.A. 33/2025 and by filing the I.A. he has opposed the prayer for bail stating that the incident occurred on 26.03.2025 whereby, six family members of the complainant have received serious injury by gun fire and assault by sticks and machete. It is Page No.# 3/5 stated this inhuman act was committed by more than thirty-two persons with pre-plan to murder all the family members of the informant. It is stated that the six injured victims were admitted to TRIMHS, Naharlagun for further treatment and it is stated that two of the injured persons are still in unconscious condition and getting treatment under ICU. It is also stated that the rest of the injured have received multiple bullet injuries and that they are all in serious condition. 6. It is also stated that the alleged/ accused person had submitted a copy of refill memo of gas station of Itanagar, which was issued on 26.03.2025 in support of his submission that he was not present at the site of the incident of 26.03.2025, however, it is stated by the learned counsel that the copy of refill memo could have been acquired by any person in the name of another person. 7. Learned counsel has also submitted that alleged/accused, Shri. Tagru Suraj also came to the incident spot possessing one kartoos gun and local dao, he was spotted at the incident wearing police personal uniform with his face covered by a mask and that he is openly involved in the offence and he has been seen by many villagers and therefore, the plea of alibi of being in another place at that time of incident is not true and it is a fact that the accused person was at the spot when the incident occurred. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that because of the interim protection given by this Court the investigation has been hampered and therefore, no weapons could be seized by the I.O. till date and therefore, it is prayed that the interim bail may be vacated and the present bail application may be dismissed for a free and fair investigation. Page No.# 4/5 8. This Court has perused the case diary and heard the learned counsels for the party as well as the learned P.P. At this stage of the investigation, this Court would not like to go into the merits of the case. However, the court has to only study the observation of the I.O. and to see whether there is any prima facie case against the applicant. 9. From the observations of the I.O. made in the letter dated 08.04.2025 written to the learned P.P., this Court, is of the view that the I.O. has not made any serious objections to the present bail application and has also observed that investigation so far has not revealed the active role of the applicant in the present case and it is also the view of this Court that the applicant has complied with the directions of this Court and has appeared before the I.O. on two different dates and his statements has been recorded and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is not cooperating with the investigation. 10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The interim bail granted on 01.04.2025 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. This Court also imposes an additional condition that the present applicant shall not threaten or coerce the witnesses in any way and shall be available before the I.O. as and when he is summoned and he shall cooperate with the investigation. This application stands disposed. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant