ORDER

Date : 10-03-2021 Heard Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Bori, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Shri Tana Selo in connection with Sagalee P.S. Case No.03/2021 registered under Sections 457/325/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The aforesaid Sagalee P.S. case was registered on an FIR lodged by one Shri Nabam Sera before the Officer-in-Charge, Sagalee Police Station on 21.01.2021 stating that on 26.12.2020 at around 19.30 hours, the petitioner and one Shri Tana Agung accompanied by 15 other persons had attacked his family and dismantled his residential house and when he attempted to resist, the petitioner and other accompanying him pelted stones on him which resulted in cervical bone injury. The delay of lodging the FIR for about 25 days have been explained in the FIR itself, wherein, it has been stated that on 27.12.2020 i.e. the next day of the incident occurred, the complainant had lodged an FIR before the Sagalee Police Station which was withdrawn on assurance given by the village elders for amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, after the earlier FIR lodged on 27.12.2020, was withdrawn, a date for settlement meeting was fixed on 18.01.2021 at Pech village. However, on the date fixed for amicable settlement on 18.01.2021, none of the accused including the petitioner were present on the day and therefore, no meeting for amicable settlement could be held and hence, the FIR dated 21.01.2021 was filed against the petitioner which was registered as Sagalee P.S. Case No. 03/2021 registered under Sections 457/325/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not appear on 18.01.2021 for amicable settlement at Pech village because of an appeal dated 16.01.2021 issued by the Village Level Interim Peace Committee of Pech and Hoj village, in which, the Peace Committee had proposed to conduct a meeting sometime in the month of February, 2021 and therefore, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail in connection with the aforesaid Police case.

Mr. Bori, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State by supporting the case of the petitioner submits that as the incident had occurred almost a month back from the date of lodging of the FIR not much headway could be made by the Investigating Officer and therefore, there are no substantial and incriminating evidence against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to go on pre-arrest bail.

Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Addl. PP have been given due consideration by this Court.

This Court by an order dated 25.02.2021 while granting the petitioner privilege of interim pre-

arrest bail had called for the Case Diary fixing the matter to be listed today.

Case Diary, as called for, has been produced by the learned Addl. PP Mr. Bori.

On perusal of the Case Diary along with a Status report with updated Case Diary dated 09.03.2021 submitted by the Investigating Officer to the learned Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench, it is noticed that the explanation provided by the petitioner for delay in lodging the FIR in the FIR itself have been found to be correct and corroborated by the Status report of the Investigating Officer.

On further perusal of the Status report, it is noticed that while Investigating the case, the I.O. of the case had visited the Place of Occurrence, had drawn the rough sketch map, photograph of the Place of Occurrence taken, however, the photograph taken by the I.O. of the case have not been submitted along with the Status report as well as in the Case Diary. It is further noticed that the I.O. of the case had found at the Place of Occurrence that some group of poli