Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040005332025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/44/2025 Tagru Taje Son of Late Tagru Tatam, resident of Village Gophur, Itanagar, PO and PS Chimpu, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by its PP Advocate for the Petitioner : Orin Modi, Duram Miyu,Ajit Bonia,Noni Nobeng Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Nabam Taro,Lipi Niri,A Bodo BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 09-04-2025 This application has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant, namely, Shri Tagru Taje being apprehensive of arrest in connection with Palin P.S. Case No. 08/2025. 2. Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the applicant states that on the Page No.# 2/5 date of alleged incident dated 26.03.2025, the applicant was at Itanagar and attending some family meeting. It is stated that as per the FIR, the alleged incident occurred on 26.03.2025 between 8-9 AM at Neomi Village. The distance between the place of incident and Itanagar is about 250 Km and as such, the allegation against the present applicant is prima facie not sustainable and allegation against the applicant is false and concocted and his name was randomly mentioned in the FIR without any basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that similarly situated persons in the same case have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and hence, it is prayed that present applicant may allowed to go on pre- arrest bail on the ground of parity. 3. Mr. A. Bodo, learned counsel for the informant has filed an objection application being IA(Crl.) 30(AP)/2025, on behalf of 6(six) victims praying for rejection of the present application filed by the alleged accused person, Shri Tagru Taje on the ground that on 26.03.2025, 6(six) family members of the complainant had received serious injury by the gun firing, assault by sticks and machetes and therefore, the 6(six) victims are in serious condition, getting treatment in ICU at TRIMHs, Naharlagun. It is submitted that the alleged accused was at the spot when the incident occurred and the plea of alibi does not hold water at this stage as there are video clips and mobile phone pictures which shows that the alleged accused person was at the spot of alleged incident on 26.03.2025. The learned counsel has submitted that incriminating photos and video clips and also the statements of the eye witness has been given to the I.O and therefore, there is prima facie case against present applicant and therefore, prays Page No.# 3/5 that bail application may be dismissed. 4. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor has also produced the status report submitted by the I.O of the case, wherein it is stated that all the victims have been examined except for one Shri Tagru Taru, who was still undergoing treatment under ICU, and recorded their statements U/s 180 (3) BNSS. A look out notice has been addressed to all SPs and OCs under which respective jurisdiction the accused persons have residential address and notices have been passed to nab the accused persons of the instant case. It is stated by the I.O that despite conducting raids at different places to nab the accused persons involved in the case, all the efforts were in vain as they are evading arrest right after commission of the offence. The requisition for technical surveillance of the phone numbers in respect of the accused persons were submitted and also obtained the same, but their phone numbers are still found switched off. The I.O. has also engaged all available sources to locate the whereabouts of the accused persons but no clue could be found about their whereabout. It is stated that in the course of investigation, 6(six) accused persons have appeared at the police station on the strength of the interim bail order issued by this Court, they have been arrested, interrogated and subsequently, released on bail. 5. In the course of further investigation, the I.O. stated that 6(six) numbers of licensed firearms, 1) 2(two) numbers of .22 rifles, 2) 2(two) numbers of SBBL 12 Bore Guns and 3) 1(one) number of .32 Revolver have been seized from the possessions of the alleged accused persons, namely, Shri Tagru Suraj, Shri Takap Tagru and Shri Tagru Talin Page No.# 4/5 respectively for further examination of the firearms. However, all the remaining named accused persons are still at large and thereby, evading police arrest deliberately. The I.O. has also stated that investigation is at the early stage and custodial interrogation of the accused persons is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy of the offence and to identify the actual persons who fired the guns. The I.O. also states that all efforts to apprehend them have so far proven futile. The I.O has also stated that there is strong apprehension that if granted a pre-arrest bail, the accused persons will influence witnesses, tamper with material evidence and hamper the ongoing course of investigation. The I.O has also stated that on of the victim has identified the present applicant as the person who fire upon him. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the status report produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is pertinent to note that prosecution had no objection with regard to the bail of alleged accused persons in bail application being AB No.38(AP)/2025, AB No.39(AP)/2025 and AB No.40(AP)/2025 and therefore, this Court had allowed the bail applications. However, in the present case, the I.O. through the learned Public Prosecutor had expressed their serious objection as they have found prima facie case against the alleged accused person. On going through the status report of the I.O. dated 09.04.2025, this Court has observed that the applicant has even switched off his phone number and he could not be contacted at all by the I.O. The I.O. has also observed that alleged accused person in the present case is capable of influencing witnesses and tampering the material evidences. Page No.# 5/5 7. Accordingly, on the basis of the observations made above, this Court is of the view that the present applicant has not been able to make out a case for granting pre-arrest bail in the present case and hence, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant