Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040010702026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/39/2026 Jambey Lobsang Age: 36 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Lobsang Zimba resident of Mangnam Village PO and PS Lumla Tawang District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP 2:ABC Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by her natural guardian resident of Guntse Village PO and PS Lumla Tawang District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : H K Jamoh Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 03-08-2026 Heard Mr. H. K. Jamoh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional PP for the State and Mr. M. Ratan, learned Legal Aid counsel. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant in connection with LML P.S. Case No. 02/2026, registered under Sections 4(2)/6 of the POCSO Act. The case of the accused applicant is that the prosecution has engaged one Rikhap Jyoti Pachoni, who was working in his house, has allegedly committed rape upon a minor victim, who was working as a housemaid in the house of the accused applicant. The applicant herein was granted interim bail on 04.05.2026 with conditions. Service upon the informant was also effected but he did not appear. Learned counsel, Mr. M. Ratan, was appointed as Legal Aid Counsel to represent the respondent No. 2. The scanned TCR has been received. Page No.# 3/3 The learned Additional PP submits that in the meantime, in the chargesheet filed after completion of investigation, the present applicant has been listed as a prosecution witness and in the context of the same, he submits that there should be no longer any apprehension of arrest on the part of the applicant. Mr. M. Ratan, learned Legal Aid Counsel concurs with the said submission. I find force in the submissions and contentions of the learned Additional PP. In view of the transposition of the petitioner from being named in the FIR to being listed as a prosecution witness, there would no longer be any apprehension of arrest. Apprehension of arrest being the basis of anticipatory bail application, the instant anticipatory bail application therefore, would have no basis and in a way has become infructuous. In such view of the matter, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of on the aforesaid terms as having become infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant