Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040012902026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/100/2026 Smti Dai Yakia Daughter of Late Zara Tata, permanent resident of Loa Village, PO and PS Tali, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Limi Bam, Bate Joel Koyu,Mindo Taso,Bomchi Taipodia Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 12-08-2026 Heard Mr. Limi Bam, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Ms. Lakshmi Hage, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. By way of instituting the present application under Section 482(1) of the BNSS, 2023, the accused applicant, namely, Smti. Dai Yakia, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 55/2026, registered under Sections 318(4)/316(5) of the BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/5 3. It is projected in the application that an FIR dated 20.07.2026 came to be lodged by Mrs. Debia Ake (informant), before the Officer-in-Charge, Nirjuli Police Station, Arunachal Pradesh, inter alia, alleging, therein, that the accused applicant, herein, had approached her repeatedly to manage precious local ornaments for her relative's marriage. It was projected that, in accordance with the request made, the informant had handed over one Mala (Dogli), costing around Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs), belonging to the informant and one Maaj, costing over Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs), belonging to one Tachang Venia of Karshinsa. The said Mala (Dogli) as well as the Maaj, was projected to have been handed over to the accused applicant on 13.12.2025. It was further projected in the FIR that the accused applicant had assured the informant that she would return the articles if they were not to her liking or would pay the cost of the ornaments if her elder members certified that the ornaments were of antique quality. It is projected that the accused applicant had sold the said ornaments to her customer without the consent of the informant and was avoiding her phone calls and had also changed her residential address. As the whereabouts, of the accused applicant could not be traced, the informant lodged the said FIR. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered the Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 55/2026 under Sections 318(4)/316(5) of the BNS, 2023. 5. Mr. Limi Bam, learned counsel for the accused applicant has submitted that the ornaments in question were handed over to the accused applicant by the informant for being sold. The informant had accordingly found one buyer who was ready to purchase the Maaj belonging to one Tachang Venia of Karshinsa for a lower price of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs). It is submitted that, accordingly, the accused applicant had sold the said Maaj and had received Page No.# 3/5 Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as part payment, which was handed over to the informant on 20.12.2025. It is submitted that the buyer of the said Maaj, having not paid the remaining amount, Tachang Venia demanded Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) from the accused applicant towards the cost of the Maaj. The accused applicant, thereafter, executed a Land Deed Agreement, dated 16.03.2026, mortgaging her plot of land located at Holongi for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) with the said Tachang Venia. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that, as the accused applicant had failed to pay the amount demanded by the said Tachang Venia, she issued a blank cheque bearing No. 635424 dated 20.04.2026. 6. Mr. Limi Bam, learned counsel for the accused applicant, accordingly, submits that the projections made in the FIR are clearly perverse. He further submits that, on a perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR, it would go to reveal that the dispute is of a civil nature and that the ingredients requisite for establishing the charges under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the BNS, 2023, against the accused applicant are clearly absent. In the above premises, the learned counsel for the accused applicant has submitted that, in the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, custodial interrogation of the accused applicant would not be called for. He, therefore, submits that the accused applicant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting her pre-arrest bail. 7. Ms. Lakshmi Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that the investigation in the matter is at a nascent stage and that the ornaments involved are yet to be recovered. She submits that custodial interrogation of the accused applicant would, therefore, be necessary. Page No.# 4/5 Accordingly, she submits that this Court may be pleased not to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant at this stage. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused applicant, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the same would not mandate custodial interrogation of the accused applicant. This Court has also taken note of the further steps taken by the accused applicant by executing a Land Deed Agreement as well as issuing a blank cheque for Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) in favour of the owner of the Maaj. Further, this Court is of the considered view that the apprehensions raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions while extending the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant in the matter. 10. In view of the above, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused applicant in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 55/2026, registered under Sections 318(4)/316(5) of the BNS, 2023, she shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: i. that the accused applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within 10 (ten) days from today; ii. that the accused applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make herself available before the investigating authority as and when called for; iii. that the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly Page No.# 5/5 try to hamper or tamper with the investigation in the instant case. iv. that the accused applicant, herein, shall furnish her residential address and a functional mobile phone number to the investigating officer and shall keep the said mobile number switched on and reachable at all times. She shall intimate any change of address or contact number, in advance, to the Investigating Officer. 11. Breach of any of the aforesaid conditions or any attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses shall entail cancellation of the bail forthwith, without prejudice to any other action available in law. 12. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Jumbi Bam Date: 2026.08.12 18:36:18 +05'30'