Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040001872026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/13/2026 Tash Kam Son of Late Tash Takam, permanent resident of Village Dem, PO Deed, PS Yazali, Keyi Panyor District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tailang Laji, Hage Tai Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 13.03.2026 Heard Mr. M. Kamcham, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Niti Vihar P.S. Case No. 09/2025, registered under Section 326 (g)/103 BNS, arising out of FIR dated 24.03.2025. Page No.# 2/4 3. The gist of the case involved in the instant matter is that an FIR dated 24.03.2025 was lodged before the Niti Vihar Police Station by one Shri Ruhi Tai, alleging, inter alia, that on 24.03.2025, at around 3.30 AM, the accused-applicant, namely, Smti Tash Nako and her husband had a fight on some personal family matter; that the fight and argument between them continued for sometime; that thereafter, the accused-applicant, allegedly burned the house wherein her husband and her mother-in-law were residing; that the accused-applicant had forcefully snatched the cell-phone of her mother-in-law and thereafter, locking both her husband and mother-in-law inside the house, she set the house on fire. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Niti Vihar P.S. Case No. 09/2025, under the aforementioned Sections. After the completion of the investigation, the Officer In-charge filed Charge-sheet, vide Charge-sheet No. 19/2025 and thereafter, charges against the accused-applicant was framed under Section 326(g)/103 of the BNS, 2023, vide order dated 23.07.2025 and pending in the evidence stage. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant had filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh, however, the same was rejected by the aforesaid Court on 24.09.2025. The learned counsel submits that the case has been registered against the accused-applicant merely on suspicion, as the accused-applicant and her husband were not having a good relationship and she was being tortured by the husband on many occasions after getting drunk. He further submits that on the fateful night also, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife, also involving mother-in-law, wherein, she was asked to leave the house and therefore, she went out of the house taking her belongings. He submits that what happened thereafter, the accused-applicant was totally unaware of and she had been implicated in the instant case falsely by the family members of the deceased husband merely on suspicion, as they were not having a cordial relationship. He further submits that Page No.# 3/4 the accused-applicant is already in jail for the last one year and only two of the PWs have been examined. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage. 6. The Trial Court record in the instant case has been received which is perused by this Court. 7. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the case relates to a heinous crime of killing two persons and since the trial is going on in a relatively good speed and two of the PWs have already been examined, this is not a stage, wherein this Court should allow the accused-applicant to go on bail. In this connection, the learned P.P. has relied on the case of X-Appellant Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 1106, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme has held that once the trial starts, the trial should be allowed to come to a logical and during that time, bail should not be granted, wherein, the offence alleged is of a heinous crime. 8. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and taking into account the stage of the trial, which seems to be going in a reasonable speed and expected to be completed within a short period of time and also taking into account the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of X-Appellant (supra), is of the considered view that this is not a stage, wherein the accused-applicant should be granted bail. In this connection, the following paragraphs of the said case being relevant are extracted herein below: - “14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. Page No.# 4/4 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions and taking into account of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant