Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040011962025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/88/2025 Hari Taro Son of Late Hari Tayam, resident of Six Kilo, Itanagar near Donyi Polo Vidya Bhawan School, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Tagum, Rup Techi Tara,Anil Podo,Hage Tai,N Ngongnya,Rage Koyu,Likha Tabin Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 08.09.2025 Heard Mr. T. Tagum, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent and Mr. M.G. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This is an application u/s 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying for grant of bail to the accused person, namely, Shri Nami Chatung in connection with Sessions (Z) Case No. 03/2023 u/s 302/201 IPC arising out of Ziro P.S. Case No. 08/2023. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Tagum that the present accused person is innocent and has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that initially a bail application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Ziro praying for bail of the present accused and hearing both sides and perusal of the record, bail was granted to the accused person by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ziro vide order dated 20.06.2024 in Bail Application No. 27/2024 and since then the accused was in bail and during that period he never violated any conditions of the bail imposed on him. But, after his release one Shri Tasso Murte Opo filed a Criminal Petition No. 97/2024 before this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the accused vide bail order dated 20.06.2024 and this Court vide its judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No. 97/2024 had cancelled the bail granted to the accused person by Page No.# 3/9 the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the learned Trial Court had passed the bail order in a very casual manner without taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence and without assigning any valid reason. In the said order the accused was also directed to surrender before the learned Court of Sessions Judge within 15 days and to file a fresh application before the learned Trial Court below. In pursuant to the order of this Court, the accused had surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge, Ziro on 17.06.2025 and then he was taken into judicial custody on the same day and thereafter he was forwarded to judicial custody and thereafter he also filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge but that was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 26.06.2025 and since 17.06.2025 the accused is in custody. So considering his period of custody the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail and being the permanent resident there is no chance of absconding of the present accused. 5. Further it is submitted by Mr. Tagum that out of 19 nos. of prosecution witnesses 14 have already been examined in connection with Sessions Case No. 03/2023 even at the time of passing the rejection order of bail. Mr. Tagum further submitted that there is sufficient progress in the trial and out of 19 nos. of witnesses, 14 have already been examined and the rest of the witnesses are only the official witnesses and thus there is no chance of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the remaining PWs. More so, from the evidence of the PWs it is also seen that no incriminating materials are brought by the PWs in their evidence on record and hence considering this aspect of the case, vis-à-vis, the length of detention already undergone by the petitioner, his prayer for bail may be considered. He further submitted that detention in the custody pending the completion of trial would be a cause of hardship and the personal Page No.# 4/9 liberty guaranteed under Article 21 is to be considered while passing the order of bail for any accused and it is the settled principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. 6. In that context Mr. Tagum also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 (Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation) and emphasized on para 21, 22 , 23 & 27 of the said judgment which reads as follows:- “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction of the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.” 7. Mr. Tagum also relied on another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Arvind Kejriwal which was reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2550 (Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI) and basically emphasized in para 38, 13 & 14 wherein Page No.# 5/9 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that - “continued incarceration for an extended period pending trial both infringed upon establish legal principles and the appellant’s right to liberty, traceable to Article 21 of our constitution.” 8. Citing the above preferred judgment Mr. Tagum submitted that it is a fit case wherein the bail may be granted to the accused/person and he is ready to face the trial and appear regularly before the Court as and when the date is fixed by the Court. 9. Mr. Tado, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the present bail application can be considered as a subsequent bail application but there is no new ground in the instant bail application to consider his bail prayer. There is no change of circumstances to consider the bail application nor there is any urgent or new ground for the consideration. He further submitted that the period of incarceration only cannot be the sole ground for consideration of bail and the gravity of offence and other circumstances is also to be considered while exercising the discretionary power of bail. 10. In that context he also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex court passed in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2005 0 Supreme(SC) 104], wherein it is held that “if a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be question as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law.” 11. He further submitted that it is a fact that till date out of 19 nos. of witnesses, 17 nos. of witnesses have already been examined and only 2/3 Page No.# 6/9 witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution and thus the case is at the verge of end of the trial and hence the bail prayer of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage considering the gravity of the offence as well as the seriousness of the offence. 12. In this context Mr. Tagum submitted that he had stated about the change of circumstances in the present petition especially in para no. 11 & 12 of the petition wherein he raised the point that all the eye-witnesses and the other vital witnesses had already been examined by the prosecution and the witnesses who are yet to be examined are the official witnesses who are the high ranking police officers and the accused person being a retired Constable cannot have any influence over the high ranking officers who are yet to be examined by the prosecution. Thus, the stage of the case and the progress of the case has been brought in the petition which is sufficient to establish the change of circumstances in the present petition that of the circumstances while rejecting his earlier bail application. 13. Mr. M.G. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted in this regard that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is a heinous crime who alleged to have murdered a person. His two sisters also stated that the present accused had committed murder of the deceased and after committing the murder he narrated about the incident to his two sisters. More so, the proceeding is also continuing in a good pace and within a reasonable period as many as 17 nos. of witnesses are already being examined and thus it cannot be said that there is a delay in disposal of this case to violate the fundamental right of the present accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Mr. Singh accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the present accused at the stage of Page No.# 7/9 the proceeding. He further submitted that in the serious nature of offence like rape, murder, dacoity etc. once trial commences, the bail application for the accused should not be considered. To substantiate his stand Mr. Singh has relied on an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 13378/2024 (X) v. State of Rajasthan and Another. Accordingly, it is prayed that the instant bail petition filed by the accused may be rejected at this stage. 14. After hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition. It is an admitted fact that the accused was earlier granted bail by the Court of learned Sessions Judge only considering the age of the accused and without assigning any valid reason. The informant side accordingly approached this Court with a prayer for cancellation of bail and considering all aspects of the case, this Court had cancelled the order of bail of the accused vide its order dated 03.06.2025 in Criminal Petition No. 97(AP)/2024 with a further direction to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge and to file a fresh application for bail. In pursuant to the said order the accused person had surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge on 17.06.2025 and on his surrender he was forwarded to judicial custody. Thereafter he approached the learned Sessions Judge with a fresh application of bail but that was rejected vide order dated 26.06.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge. It is seen that at the time of rejecting the bail application of the accused, the prosecution had examined 14 nos. of witnesses out of 19 nos. of witnesses, including all the vital as well as the eye-witnesses of the prosecution. It is a fact that the case is of heinous in nature wherein a person was allegedly murdered by the accused. But, in the same time it also cannot be denied that out of 19 nos. of witnesses, till date, 17 Page No.# 8/9 nos. of witnesses have already been examined and only 2/3 official witnesses are left to be examined and hence there may not be any probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of those 2/3 official witnesses by the accused, even if he is allowed to go on bail. Further, it is seen that when he was earlier released on bail, had not violated any terms and conditions of this case and it is also an admitted fact that the accused is a permanent resident of the addressed locality and there may not be any chance of absconding. 15. The judgment which is relied by learned counsel for the informant is not applicable in the instant case and in the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court had considered that the bail ought to have been granted to the accused without even recording the evidence of the witnesses and her mother, in spite of the fact that both the accused and the victim are resident of the same village. But, in the instant case the circumstance/situation is a bit different wherein accused surrendered before the learned Session Judge in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 97(AP)/2024 dated 03.06.2025 and in the same time it is also seen that all the vital/eye-witnesses of the prosecution are already been examined by the prosecution and only 2/3 official witnesses are yet to be examined. 16. So considering all these aspects of the case, vis-à-vis, the period of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further incarceration of the accused may not be necessary for the interest of the trial and also considering the fact that there is no chance of absconding of the accused person, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused, namely, Shri Nami Chatung. 17. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like Page No.# 9/9 amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Ziro. The accused/petitioner, namely Shri Nami Chatung, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Ziro without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant