Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040007252025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/54/2025 Kuru Halu Son of Shri Kuru Tarang, resident of Reru Village, PO and PS Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Nako Tangu Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Shri Nako Taling permanent resident of Village Sululya PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tari, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/8 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Khoda Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. T Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioner seeking bail in connection with NLG P.S Case No. 71/2024 registered under Section 103 BNS. The allegation against the petitioner as it revealed from the FIR dated 10.07.2024 lodged by the brother of the victim who stated that he received the telephonic call from a relative informing him that his sister i.e. the victim was brought death at TRIMS, Naharlagun. He was also informed that there were numerous bruises found on the body of his sister indicating that she was brutally beaten till death. He was further informed that it was the petitioner who had beaten up the victim to death. On the basis of the said FIR, the police registered the case as mentioned above. After conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner vide charge-sheet No. 130/2024 dated 13.09.2024 under Section 103/58 of BNS. Page No.# 3/8 3. That the prosecution story as it reveals from the FIR as well as the witnesses of the case is that the petitioner and the victim was in a relationship and they were staying together in a rented house. On the night of 08.07.2024, there was a quarrel between them which was heard by all the neighbours and on being requested by the neighbours, the owner of the tenanted premises went and requested the petitioner to stop quarrel. Thereafter, on the next day morning at around 10:00 am, the petitioner left the said tenanted premises for Assam. It is seen from the evidence that the victim person was inside the house for the entire day and nobody saw her coming out of the same. In the evening at around 7:00 pm on 09.07.2024, the petitioner came back to his house with some food for the victim and that after one hour, he called his friend saying that the victim was lying unconscious and thereafter, he and his friend took the victim to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. 4. Mr. Khoda Tari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted before this Court that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 11 (eleven) months. He stated that the petitioner and the victim were in relationship and were staying in the same house and that there was a quarrel on the night before the incident i.e. on 08.07.2024. He further referred to the deposition made by the I.O before the trial court wherein, he stated that the house owner of the rented Page No.# 4/8 place where the petitioner and the victim lived, stated to the I.O that he saw the victim on the night of 09.07.2024 and found no injuries on the body of the victim. He also stated that the trial has been completed to a great extent and that there are no chances of the petitioner to tamper with the evidence or to abscond and that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. As such, he has prayed before this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Mr. K Tari, to substantiate his argument placed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Suresh Narayan vs. State, reported in 1983 Supreme (Rajathan) 381, wherein the Hon’ble High Court enlarged the petitioner on bail in a murder case and during the last stage of the trial. 5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted before this Court that the trial in the instant case is almost over and that only the Doctor is to be examined by the prosecution and as such, she submits that the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. In this connection, she placed a judgment passed by the Apex Court in X vs. Rajasthan, reported in 2024 (4) Crimes (SC) 537 wherein, the Apex Court held that once the trial commences it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may result either in conviction or acquittal and if the High Court exercise its jurisdiction and releases the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of Page No.# 5/8 the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial. The Apex Court further held that only in the event the trial is unduly delayed and that too not for the fault of the accused, the Court may direct the accused to be released on bail. 6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further relies on the statement of PW-2 & 3 deposed before the trial court wherein, they said that on 08.07.2024 at about 8 pm there was quarrel between the petitioner and the victim and that the neighbours complaint and on the said complaint, the owner met the petitioner and told him not to quarrel and that at 10:00 am on the next date, the accused was found going out by riding a scooty. It was further stated that the petitioner came back at 7:00 in the evening on 09.07.2024 and after one hour, he called up PW-3 informing him that the victim was unconscious and that both PW-3 and the petitioner took the victim to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. She submitted that after the evening of 8.07.2024, nobody saw the victim and as such, she states that the victim was assaulted on the night of the 08.07.2024 leading to her death. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Papu Yadav & Anr., reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 wherein, the Apex Court had observed that long incarceration in jail cannot be a ground for bail. Page No.# 6/8 7. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the records. 8. It is noticed from the evidence on record that accused and the victim had a quarrel on the night of 08.07.2024 which was heard by the neighbours and it seems the quarrel was not a very small quarrel and thereafter, the petitioner was seen going out of his house and finally the petitioner was seen carrying the victim to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. The post-mortem report of the victim reveals that she died of shock and haemorrhage resulting from an internal bleeding in her chest and abdomen. In the post-mortem report, it was further observed that the time since death would be more than 24 hours which establishes the fact that the victim must have died on the night of 08.07.2024 or subsequent thereof. 9. It can also be deduced from the records that had the victim been taken to the hospital at an earlier point of time, she would have survived since it is in the post-mortem report that the death had taken place more than 24 hours back. However, the petitioner left her in the morning of 9th July, 2024 and people had seen the door of the petitioner’s house closed from outside. Further it is seen from the evidence of PW-3 that the petitioner bought some food for the victim and went to his house at around 7:00 pm in the evening on 09.07.2024 and that Page No.# 7/8 at about 8:00 pm, the petitioner informed PW-3 that the victim was lying unconscious. 10. Further, this is an application for bail preferred by the petitioner at a belated stage of the trial where all the evidences were adduced before the trial court except the Doctor. There cannot be any occasions at this state that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence. 11. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner fought with the victim on the night of 08.07.2024 and came back the next night with food for the victim. Had he known that victim had died or would die due to alleged assaults, he would not have brought food for her. The petitioner was not aware at all. Further, he only took victim to hospital and he is the one who informed his friend. 12. In view of the same, this Court enlarges the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties, one being a local inhabitant of the State of Arunachal Pradesh to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Yupia. The bail is, however, subjected to the following conditions: (1) He will appear before the Court as and when called for. Page No.# 8/8 (2) He will not leave the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Yupia without the leave of the learned Court. (3) He will not influence any of the witnesses who is connected with the instant case. 13. This Bail Petition is disposed off. 14. The observation made above will not have any impact during the trial of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant