Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040006142026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/41/2026 Tai John Son of Shri Tai Takap, resident of Niti Vihar, Itanagar, PO Bank Tinali, PS Niti Vihar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jambey Tsering Kee, Dejum Tally,Techi Topu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Topuk Gocham,Gyamar Jeevan,Taying Nega,Tao Tarin,Binter Picha,Jumgam Jini BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Tsering Kee, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant, namely Shri Tai John, in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 25/2026, registered under Sections 331(5) /117(2) /119(1) /127(2) / 324(3)/324(4)/351 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged on 25.04.2026 by one Smti Nabam Memik Taw, alleging, inter alia, that her husband, Shri Taw Tamar, is a government employee under the Public Works Department, posted at Capital Division (B), Itanagar and that on 23.04.2026 at about 8:48 a.m., one Micheal Tajo along with two PSOs and five other persons criminally trespassed into their house at Lekhi village; that the accused persons came in two vehicles bearing registration numbers AR-05-MT-0003 and AR-02C-1997; that the group of accused persons forcibly trespassed into their premises and after confining her husband inside the premises, physically assaulted him and attempted to drag him to the above-mentioned vehicles with the intent to abduct him; that they forcibly snatched her husband’s mobile phone and attempted to extort money by threatening him with dire consequences if the amount was not paid; that the incident occurred in the presence of at least two eyewitnesses, namely Mr. Nabam Bagang and Mr. Nabam Bado; and that she apprehended that her husband’s life and liberty as well as the safety of the family remained under threat. 4. In view of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered Nirjuli Police Station Case No. 25/2026 under the aforementioned sections. 5. Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel submits that in terms of the order dated 05.05.2026, the accused applicant has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded. He submits that the accused applicant will fully cooperate with the Page No.# 3/4 investigation and shall not try to influence any witnesses connected with the instant case. He submits that the in view of his cooperation with the Investigating Officer, his custodial detention is not necessary in the instant case therefore, interim order granted to him vide order dated 05.05.2026, should be made absolute. 6. On other hand, Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application stating that investigation is still going on and accused applicant is a brother-in-law of main accused in the instant case, namely, Shri Micheal Tajo and there is every possibility that the accused applicant was also present at the spot on the date of occurrence. 7. Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel appearing for the complainant supports the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the accused applicant. 8. It is seen that an additional affidavit by the accused applicant has already been filed in the instant case wherein, he has stated that in terms of the order dated 05.05.2026, the accused applicant has appeared before the Investigating Officer in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No.25/2026 and got his statement record on 08.05.206. 9. Taking into account that the accused applicant has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and got his statement recorded and cooperating with Investigation, this Court is of the considered view that, at this stage, custodial detention of the accused applicant may not be required, therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the accused Page No.# 4/4 applicant vide order dated 05.05.2026 is hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that the accused applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation and shall make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Authority 10. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant