Gauhati High Court
AB/25/2026 of Yeshe Dorjee Tongchi Vs The State of AP on 17 March 2026
GAHC040003782026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/25/2026 Yeshe Dorjee Tongchi Son of Late Phuntso Tongchi, resident of Sona Kunj, Hill Top, ESS Sector, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh
GAHC040003782026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB/25/2026
Yeshe Dorjee Tongchi
Son of Late Phuntso Tongchi, resident of Sona Kunj, Hill Top, ESS Sector, PO and PS
Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and permanent resident of Village Jigaon, PO Shergaon, PS Rupa, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP
represented through the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak, T Tabing,Bebeng Siboh,Aso Dalbong 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 : 18-03-2026
Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Itanagar W.P.S. Case No. 18/2026 under Section 85 of the BNS, 2023.
3. The allegation against the accused applicant, who is the husband of the informant, is that he has subjected the informant to cruelty, mental agony, humiliation, emotional trauma, and domestic violence and allegedly involved in extra marital relationship. Based on the above allegation, the aforesaid Police Station case under Section 85 of the BNS was registered against the accused applicant.
4. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the police have issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 requiring the accused applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as I.O.) of the case.
5. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the accused applicant, submits that the accused applicant is innocent of all the allegations in the aforementioned FIR. The accused applicant is a 75 years old retired IAS officer who is a respectable citizen, he has undergone surgery for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation by the Department of Cardiology and is now under medication, taking life-saving medicines. He further submits that, on receipt of the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS issued by the Police, the accused applicant had appeared before the I.O. of the case and gave his statement and thus, the accused applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case.
6. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, on instructions, submits that the accused applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and in fact, appeared before the I.O. of the case on 01.03.2026 and his police statement has already been recorded. He further submits that since the accused is cooperating with the investigation, his custodial interrogation may not be required at this stage.
7. Considering that the dispute is matrimonial in nature, the age of the accused applicant is about 75 years and he is presently under medication and that the accused applicant is cooperating with the investigation, he has appeared before the I.O. of the case and has got his statement recorded and also considering the fact that the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 has already been complied with, it appears that the custodial interrogation/remand of the accused applicant at this stage is no longer required. In view of the above, this Court is of the, prima facie, opinion that the accused applicant has made out a case for extending the privilege of granting of pre-arrest bail
8. Accordingly, in the event of the arrest of the accused applicant in connection with Itanagar W.P.S. Case No. 18/2026, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions:
i. That the accused applicant shall appear before the I.O. of the case as and when called for;
ii. That the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly try to influence witness or tamper with the evidence of the case.
9. With the above, this anticipatory bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant