Gauhati High Court - Itanagar
Bengia Chabo @ Chunu vs The State Of Ap on 30 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC040000972026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : AB/5/2026
Bengia Chabo @ Chunu
Son of Bengia Bado, a permanent resident of Village Papu, PO and P Koloriang,
Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing near DK
Convention Hall, Indira Gandhi Park, Itanagar, PO and PS Itanagar, Papum Pare
District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP
represented by the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Pramod Kr. Gour, D Doilyang,T Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 30.01.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Gour, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed praying for release of the alleged person, namely, Shri Bengia Chabo @ Page No.# 2/5 Chunu on interim pre-arrest bail in connection with Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 78/2025 under Section 376(1)/ 354 of the IPC.
3. By order dated 23.01.2026, this Court had granted an interim pre-arrest bail to the alleged accused person and the matter has come up for final hearing.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the scanned copy of the Case Diary.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged accused person, after this Court granted pre-arrest bail on 23.01.2026, had appeared before the I.O of the case on 28.01.2026, and he was arrested and bail bond was executed. It is submitted that the accused person had not violated the conditions of the bail. Therefore, he prays that the interim bail may be made absolute.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the alleged accused that the allegation of intimidating the victim during the pendency of the pre-arrest bail and the further cancellation of the pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 15.01.2026 was a fake allegation and that it was the victim who had called the accused person and the accused had not done anything to harass or threaten the victim. It is also stated that the pendency of the case being Itanagar Women P.S. Case No. 78/2025 is based on a false allegation as the alleged accused has not committed any such offence. It is the prayer of the learned counsel for the alleged accused that this petition may be accordingly allowed and the interim order may be made absolute.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on Page No.# 3/5 the Case Diary and submitted that an order has also been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, directing initiation of investigation against the brother of the accused person and one advocate, Taikumar, for criminally intimidating the victim to give a false statement before the Magistrate. And in compliance, the statements of both co-accused have been recorded under Section 180 of BNSS.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also produced a copy of the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, wherein it is stated that the victim had categorically stated before the Court that he was criminally intimidated to give a false statement before the Judicial Magistrate. In view of the behaviour of the alleged accused person in the present case and, moreover, in view of the fact that Section 376(1) of IPC is a serious offence which is against society at large and also in view of the fact that there is prima facie material against the alleged accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petition is devoid of merit and may be dismissed by this Court.
9. This Court has given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties; this Court has also perused the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, by which the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused person was dismissed.
10. This Court has also gone through the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, wherein it has been clearly reflected by the learned Court below that the victim had stated before the Court that she was criminally intimidated to give a false statement before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 183(6)(A) of the BNSS by one Shri Bengia Nachung, Page No.# 4/5 the elder brother of the accused in the instant case, in the presence of an advocate, namely, Tai. The Court has also recorded that the statement of the victim prima facie reveals commission of an offence under Section 351(1) of the BNS against the brother of the accused person. In this regard, the O.C of the Itanagar Women P.S. Case was directed to register an FIR and investigate into the matter.
11. This Court has also noted the behaviour of the accused person, inasmuch as he had been granted interim pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court on 11.12.2025 with a condition that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and that he shall not tamper with the investigation. However, this Court has seen that during the pendency of the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the alleged accused by the Sessions Court, he has violated the terms and conditions granted by the Sessions Court. In such a situation, the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused person by order dated 15.01.2026.
12. This Court is prima facie satisfied that the victim had been criminally intimidated by the brother of the accused person during the pendency of the interim pre-arrest bail, as the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, has taken note of the allegation and has initiated investigation against the brother of the accused person.
13. Under such facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim order dated 23.01.2026 passed by this Court cannot be regularized at this stage, as the actions of the accused does not inspire the confidence of this Court that the accused will not hamper the investigation.
Page No.# 5/5
14. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
15. Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated.
16. Return the Case Diary to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant