Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040006752026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/46/2026 Niga Dafri Son of Late Madang Dafri, Village Dafri, PO and PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at Pipe Colony Bandredewa, PO and PS Banderdewa, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabing Lamgu, Tsering Gyatso,Jambey Tsering Kee,Dejum Tally,Techi Topu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 20.05.2026 Heard Mr. Tsering Gyatso, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 14/2026 registered under Sections 127(2)/135/117(2)/120(1)/140(3)/308(2)(5)/351(2)/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Page No.# 2/3 3. The connected CD, as called for, has been produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, and I have perused the same. 4. It appears from the record that earlier, the accused applicant moved an anticipatory bail application before the learned Court of Sessions, Yupia, which came to be rejected on 23.04.2026, with the observations that there is sufficient material against the accused applicant who not only forcefully abducted the victim but also detained him after physically assaulting him. The accused applicant also forced the victim to execute an agreement and even looted the amount available with the victim and after his release; the victim lodged an First Information Report(FIR) before the Narayanpur Police Station, Assam. It is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused applicant had demanded Rs. 8,00,000/- from the victim and even throttled him with an intention to kill him. 5. The allegations against the applicant, as reflected from the Final Report and the Case Diary, are that the applicant along with others, forcibly abducted the victim, wrongfully confined and assaulted him, compelled him to execute an agreement under coercion, looted the money available with him and further demanded an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/. 6. This Court has carefully perused the Case Diary. Prima facie, there is incriminating materials supporting the allegations made against the applicant. The nature and gravity of accusation, the manner in which the alleged offence was committed and the materials collected during investigation, do not persuade this Court to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Considering the materials available in the Case Diary; this Court is of the view that in the instant case, a proper investigation with custodial interrogation of Page No.# 3/3 the applicant, would be necessary. 8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. Interim prayer, if any, also stands rejected. 9. The bail application stands dismissed in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant