Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040006442025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/45/2025 Bamang Tame Son of Late Bamang Taniang, a resident of Kudh village, Kimin, PO and PS Kimin, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Gegum Lollen, Tatu Paching,Bamang Takar,Geken Ingo Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 13.05.2025 Heard Mr. G. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for granting bail to the alleged accused person, namely, Shri Bamang Posi, who is inside the custody in connection with Kimin P.S. Case No. 130/2015 under Sections Page No.# 2/3 366/376(2)(h)/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, basing on the written complaint lodged by the informant/victim (name withheld), the accused person was arrested in connection with Kimin P.S case being P.S. Case No. 130/2015 under Sections 366/376(2)(h)/506 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the I.O filed the case into charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366/376(2)(h) /506 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the accused was granted bail on 14.03.2016, however, his bail was cancelled and he was re- arrested on 18.09.2019. Thereafter, on 21.09.2020, the accused was again granted bail. Subsequently, on 23.07.2024, when he was produced before the Court in connection with some other case, the bailer of the accused person prayed for discharge and accordingly, the bailer of the accused person was discharged, resulting his re-arrest, and since then, the accused person is inside the custody for about 9(nine) months, hence, prays for grant of bail. 5. The scanned copy of the case record is produced and I have perused the same. 6. The record reveals that on 2(two) previous occasions the accused jumped bail, the bail granted to him and the bail bond have been forfeited and the bailers discharged. The record further indicates that the trial of the case has been delayed due to the non-appearance of the accused, as a result, the case is still pending for evidence since 2015. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that under the circumstances, the accused does not deserve the benefit of bail, as it would result into further prolonging of the trial. Moreover, the evidence of the victim is Page No.# 3/3 yet to be recorded and since the allegation is under Section 376(2)(h) read with 506 of IPC, there is every possibility that the accused might influence the victim. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has serious objection to the grant of bail to the accused. 8. Upon hearing the parties, and on perusal of the material on records, it appears that the accused has jumped the bail on 2(two) previous occasions due to which, the trial of the case has already been delayed for about 9(nine) years. Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that release of the accused on bail would further delay the trial of the case, as evident from the record that the accused had misused the liberty granted to him by jumping the bail on 2(two) previous occasions and did not appear for trial of the case. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused person at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. With the above, this bail application stands disposed of. 10. Return the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant