Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040006392025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/59/2025 Tagru Tako Son of Shri Tagru Tabu, a permanent resident of Magnia Village, PO and PS Tali, under Tali Circle, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Pekyum Tamin, Gedo Kato Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 07-05-2025 Heard Mr. P. Tamin, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 praying for privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant, namely, Shri Tagru Tako in connection with Palin P.S. Case No.09/2025 under Page No.# 2/3 Section 109(1)/118(2)/3(5) BNS read with Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1958. 3. It is the allegation in the FIR that the present petitioner along with some other persons attacked the informant and their group and severely injured them and they also used gun and local machete. The present petitioner and their group had also lodged an FIR arising out of the same incident before the Palin Police Station which was registered as Palin P.S. Case No.08/2025 registered under Section109(1)/118(2)/3(5) of BNS read with Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1958. 4. In the foresaid FIR, which is part of the record, it is disclosed that it is the allegation of the present petitioner that the informant group had attacked them with gun and machete. 5. From the materials available on record, it is also seen that the dispute revolves as regards cultivating right over an agricultural plot of land, which both the parties claim. 6. The informant of the present case, who are accused in the Palin P.S. Case No.08/2025, approached this Court by filing an anticipatory bail applications such as AB No. 48(AP)/2025, AB No. 40(AP)/2025, AB No. 38(AP)/2025, AB No. 49(AP)/2025 and AB No. 48(AP)/2025, and this Court under different order passed on 09.04.2025, granted privilege of anticipatory bail to the informant of the present case. 7. It is also seen that the present accused petitioner along with others Page No.# 3/3 were the first to lodge the FIR. This Court taking note of the aforesaid facts, granted an interim protection to the accused petitioners under its order dated 25.04.2025. 8. Considering the matter in entirety and materials available on record; and the dispute and the earlier litigation, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner may not be necessary. Accordingly, the present bail application stands allowed with the following terms and conditions; 1. That the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts either to the Police Officer or to the Court; 2. That the accused/applicant shall not indulge themselves in similar act. 3. That the accused applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for, and get their statement recorded. 9. It is needless to say that Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek for recall of this order in the event, the petitioner does not comply with the conditions imposed. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant