Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4497 (GAU)

Tame Tarang v. The State of AP

AB/51/2025 · 2025-05-05

Arun Dev Choudhury

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC040006302025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/51/2025 Tame Tarang Son of Shri Tame Tagam Tarh, a resident of E Sector, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Geken Ingo, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 06.05.2025 Heard Mr. G. Ingo, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant, namely, Shri Tame Tarang Tarh in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 34/2025 under Sections 115 (2)/132 of BNS. Page No.# 2/2 3. Considering the nature of allegations and facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused applicant was granted an interim protection from arrest with conditions amongst others that the accused applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of one week from 25.04.2025. 4. Perused the Case Diary. 5. It is seen from the Case Diary that the petitioner duly appeared before the Investigating Officer of the case and also recorded his statement. There are no materials on record to suggest any role of the petitioner directly or indirectly by making any inducement inasmuch as threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 6. Considering the matter in its entirety including the materials so far collected by the Investigating Officer of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the accused applicant may not be warranted in the present case for the purpose of investigation. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands allowed by making the interim pre-arrest bail absolute granted vide order dated 25.04.2025 on the same terms and conditions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant