Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040013872025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/104/2025 Jottam Toko Tania Son of Shri Toko Ribia, resident of Amba Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Sate of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Bamang Tatung,Risso Aking,Gyamar Jeevan,Migo Laye,Tao Tarin,Taying Nega Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 26-08-2025 Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. As directed by this Court, a copy of the case diary has been submitted before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor. Page No.# 2/6 3. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed praying for grant of anticipatory bail to Shri Jottam Toko Tania, accused applicant in anticipation of his arrest of offences allegedly committed under Section 468 of IPC, 1860 in connection with Yachuli P.S. Case No.11/2025. 4. The case as has been projected by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that an FIR dated 17.07.2025 was filed by his wife Smti Likha Ako Toko, the informant before the Officer-in-Charge Police Station, Yachuli, Keyi Panyor District, Arunachal Pradesh, inter alia, alleging that her husband/accused applicant, who was serving as Consultant under Swachh Bharat Mission in Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) under Yachuli, PHED & Water Supply Division, had an extra marital affair with another women; that the accused applicant had abandoned her and her son, leaving her in a destitute and helpless condition; that the local Nyel was held at 09.09.2020 to 10.09.2020 and again on 19.08.2020 to 19.09.2020 wherein, the parties had agreed to divorce one another mutually but the accused husband did not agree to the decision and went off; that the accused applicant was not at all looking after the children and her and therefore, without finding any way, she had filed a maintenance case against the accused husband before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh; that in response to her maintenance case, the accused applicant had submitted a document as Annexure titled as “Case Mediators-Cum-Gaon Burah (GBs) Declaration”; that after going through the aforesaid document, the informant realised that her accused husband has forged her signature as Page No.# 3/6 well as seal and signatures of the Gaon Bura and Gaon Buri (GBs) and falsely made a claim that the mutual divorce process was completed at Talo; that instead of looking after his family, the accused husband has been mentally and physically harassing the informant from time to time, so that, she divorces him; that her husband has made false declaration before the Marriage Recorder’s Office, Aalo that he had solemnised church marriage with one Ms Yompi Nyori on 24.12.2019, and thereby, fraudulently obtained a marriage certificate; that her accused husband committed forgery by forging the seals and signatures of Gaon Buras, who are the public servant under the law; that her accused husband forged her signature and thereby, created a false document. Therefore, the informant prays for justice and action against the accused husband. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused applicant submits that before the local traditional council (Kebang/Mel) held on the aforesaid dates, in fact, both the parties had agreed for a mutual divorce agreement, but due to inclusion of certain clauses which were contrary to the oral agreement made during the meeting, the accused husband did not sign the aforesaid agreement. The learned counsel for the accused applicant further submits that there was no forgery as alleged, committed by the accused applicant as the contents had been thoroughly read and explained to all the Gaon Buras present on the aforesaid dates, and the Gaon Buras had voluntarily affixed their signatures with full consent. He further submits that a copy of the aforesaid document was, in fact, provided to the informant and her family. He submits that in the maintenance case filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class by the Page No.# 4/6 informant, the accused applicant had to submit the aforesaid document and therefore, he obtained the same from the Gaon Burahs. He submits that the accused applicant was totally unaware of the FIR that was lodged on 17.07.2025 and he came to know about the same only on 30.07.2025 through some reliable sources. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that accused applicant strongly apprehends that due to filing of the aforesaid FIR by the informant, he may be arrested by the police in connection with aforesaid FIR. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for allowing the accused petitioner to go on a pre-arrest bail. 6. The accused applicant while filing the instant pre-arrest bail application did not annexe a copy of the FIR and this Court allowed him to file an additional affidavit to bring on record the FIR. While filing the additional affidavit, the accused applicant had also filed a document, which is an FIR filed against him before the police station Yachuli, Keyi Panyor District by 7(seven) Gaon Buras, however, only 4(four) thumb impressions or seals could be seen against the names of the Gaon Buras. The FIR was lodged by the Goan Buras against the accused applicant for making false document by concealing the contents of the facts and misleading the public servants. 7. It was alleged in the aforesaid FIR that though the informant Smti Likha Ako Toko had signed the document of mutual divorce agreement, the accused applicant, Shri Toko Tania refused to sign the same and left the place. Later on, one Shri Toko Bath, the elder brother of the accused applicant handed over the copy of the divorce agreement to Shri Toko Page No.# 5/6 Sipal, Gaon Bura of Talo village for obtaining signatures of other Gaon Buras in the document. It is stated, however, that the mutual divorce agreement was never actually signed by the Gaon Buras knowing the contents of the document. It was further alleged that document, namely, “Case Mediators-Cum-Gaon Burah (GBs) Declaration” dated 24.09.2020 is a self manufactured document, and the seals and signatures in the document were forged seals and signatures. It was also alleged that the aforesaid accused applicant, Shri Toko Tania had obtained the seal and signatures of the Gaon Buras by concealing the contents of the document and thereby, misleading the Gaon Buras through misrepresentation. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the accused applicant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court has also gone through the documents annexed with the pre-arrest bail application as well as the case diary so submitted by the Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 9. It is seen from the document, namely, “Case Mediators-Cum-Gaon Burah (GBs) Declaration” that the said document contains the names, signatures and seals of 7(seven) Gaon Buras. The document reveals that the mutual divorce was settled on 19.09.2020 between both the parties and no further issue on this dispute is left except for the exchange of the document. It is also seen that the document has been actually created to show that the mutual divorce agreement had already been occurred and only some trivial issues had remained to be settled; and the same would be settled by the Gaon Buras on local level. This Court has also seen the mutual divorce agreement-cum-declaration that has been annexed to the Page No.# 6/6 instant bail application, which was denied to have been executed by the informant. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted one document marked as ‘X’, which reveals that on the basis of a complaint filed by the informant before the office of the Marriage Recorder, West Siang District, Aalo, Arunachal Pradesh, the Marriage Recorder, issued a letter to the accused applicant to appear before the said office within 15 days to clarify the complaint so made by the informant. 11. Upon consideration of materials on record i.e. “Case Mediators-Cum- Gaon Burah (GBs) Declaration”, the documents annexed with the bail application as well as the case diary, and after perusal of the statements made by the witnesses including the Gaon Buras before the police which reveals, prima facie, case against the accused applicant, this Court, hereby rejects the instant anticipatory bail application of the accused applicant. 12. The case dairy so submitted is to be returned to the learned Public Prosecutor. 13. In view of the above, this instant anticipatory bail application is disposed off as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant