AB/32/2026 of Byabang Ponung Vs The State of AP on 31 March 2026

ORDER

Date : 01.04.2026

Heard Mr. Regum Nabam, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh.

2. By way of filing this bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 50/2026 registered u/ss. 61(2)/189(8)/ 191(3)/326(f)/223(a)(b)/56/62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 & 6 of the Essential Service Maintenance (Arunachal Pradesh) Act, 1993.

3. The case of the accused applicant is that earlier, on dated 17.03.2026, he was granted interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, with a specific direction that he shall appear before the investigating officer of the case within a week from the date of the order and to cooperate with the investigation. However, the accused applicant failed to comply with the said direction and did not appear before the investigating officer of the case. Consequently, vide order dated 26.03.2026, the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, cancelled the interim bail granted to the accused applicant for violation of the bail conditions.

4. The present bail application is, therefore, a successive anticipatory bail application.

5. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the earlier non- compliance, was not willful and the applicant is now ready to cooperate with the investigation of the case and abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused applicant, contending that the applicant, having violated the earlier order of bail, granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia; is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

8. It is a settled principle that successive anticipatory bail applications are not entitled to be entertained as a matter of course, particularly, where earlier relief has been declined, or, cancelled for violation of the bail condition, unless, there is a substantial change in circumstances, or, a satisfactory explanation for the earlier default.

9. In the present case, the applicant has failed to demonstrate any convincing, or, bona fide reason for non-compliance of the earlier direction issued by the competent Court. The conduct of the applicant reflects disregard to the conditions imposed by the Court while granting discretionary relief to him.

10. Anticipatory bail being an equitable and discretionary relief, a litigant who has previously violated its conditions, does not ordinarily deserve indulgence of this Court.

11. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

12. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant wants to surrender before the police and till then, he may be protected.

14. In view of the above submission, and in the interest of justice; it is provided that if the applicant surrenders before the investigating officer of the case, or, the Court concerned within a period of 7(seven) days from today and applies for regular bail by way of filing an application, the same shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the present order.

15. The interim prayer also stands rejected and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant