JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State applicant. Also heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application, under Section 439(2) read-with-Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh through Shri Tumki Loya, Investigating Officer, Seppa Police Station Case No. 24/2022, for cancellation of bail granted to accused, Shri Babing Haffi, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, vide order dated 17.05.2022, in Seppa P.S. Case No. 24/2022, under Sections 376(1)/341/354B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:

“On 06.05.2022, the informant, Smti X (name withheld), lodged one F.I.R. with the Officer-In-Charge, Seppa P.S. to the effect that on that day, at about 7.30 p.m., accused-Babing Haffi, contacted her over phone and visited her rented room, situated at Bazaaline colony Seppa, to collect his wrist watch. Then, after knowing her room, he locked the door from inside and sensing his ill intention, she warned her not to touch her and thereafter, he started threatening her with dire consequences if she does not accept his proposal to marry him, and thereafter, he grabbed her neck and assaulted her and thereafter, committed rape upon her without her consent and thereafter left her. Upon the said complaint, the Officer-In-Charge, Seppa Police Station, registered Seppa P.S. Case No. 24/2022, under Sections 376(1)/341/354B of the Indian Penal Code, and started investigation. During investigation, the I.O. arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court on 07.05.2022. Thereafter, the accused preferred an application for bail before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seppa, and vide order dated 17.05.2022, the learned Court below has granted bail to the accused.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the State, through the I.O., preferred this application for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused/respondent on the ground that the impugned order, dated 17.05.2022, is not tenable in the eye of law as it has been well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power of a Magistrate to grant bail is subject to the embargo provided under Clause (i) Sub-Section 1 of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the learned Court below has granted bail to the accused by observing that “as observed earlier, the investigation is almost completed and the accused is well settled and deep rooted in the society. He is not influential. There is no chance of absconding and possibility of influencing the investigation and intimidating the victim is very remote. The allegations are definitely serious but at the same time the purpose of detention has already been served. Further, except for the present case, there is nothing in the record to show that the accused is habitual sex offender or a criminal. Therefore, his release will not be a threat to the society.” And that, even there is no legal bar for a Magistrate to consider an application for grant of bail to a person, who is arrested for an offence, exclusively triable by a Court of Session and it would be proper and appropriate that in such case the Magistrate directs the accused person to approach the Court of Session for the purpose of getting the relief of bail, and that even in a case where Magistrate opts to make an adventure of exercising the powers under Section 437 of the Code in respect of a person who is suspected of the commission of such an offence, arrested and detained in that connection, such Magistrate has to specially negate the existence of reasonable ground for believing that such an accused is guilty of an offence punishable with the sentence of death or imprisonment for life, and that if the Magistrate has no occasion and in fact does not find that there is no reasonable ground to believe that the accused has not committed the offence punishable with death or i