Gauhati High Court
AB/60/2026 of Niga Dafri Vs The State of AP on 28 June 2026
GAHC040008012026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/60/2026 Niga Dafri Son of Late Madang Dafri, Village Dafri, PO and SP Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, presently residing at Pipe Colony
GAHC040008012026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB/60/2026
Niga Dafri Son of Late Madang Dafri, Village Dafri, PO and SP Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh, presently residing at Pipe Colony Banderdewa, PO and SP Banderdewa, 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,Tsering Gyatso Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 29.06.2026
Heard Mr. Tsering Gyatso, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh.
2. At the very outset, Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier, vide order dated 20.05.2026 passed in AB No. 46(AP)2026, this Court rejected the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant 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.
3. The learned counsel, thus, submits that this is the subsequent bail application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for 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.
4. Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel for the accused applicant, further submits that although there is no change in the circumstances of the case, however, the applicant after rejection of the earlier pre-arrest bail application, had got himself admitted in a rehabilitation centre viz; “The Serene Rehabilitation Centre, Nirjuli” where, he was undergoing treatment in connection with Chronic Substance Use Disorder, w.e.f. 26.05.2026.
5. However, during the course of the hearing, Mr. Gyatso, learned counsel, submits that he has received information that the accused applicant has recently fled from the said rehabilitation centre where he had voluntarily taken admission after apprehending his arrest in connection with the aforesaid police case.
6. Ms. Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, on instructions, has also made a similar submission and object granting of anticipatory bail to the accused applicant.
7. From the above, it appears that the very circumstances relied upon by the accused applicant for change of circumstances, for seeking reconsideration of his prayer for anticipatory bail, have now ceased to exist. On the contrary, the subsequent conduct of the accused applicant as informed to the Court today by both the learned counsel for the parties, that the applicant has fled from the rehabilitation centre i.e. “The Serene Rehabilitation Centre, Nirjuli”, while apprehending his arrest in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 14/2026 registered u/ss. 127(2)/ 135/117(2)/120(1)/140(3)/308(2)(5)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, prima facie, indicates that the applicant is deliberately evading the process of law. Such conduct on the part of the accused applicant clearly disentitles him to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in this successive bail application and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed.
9. Return the Case Diary to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, forthwith.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant