Tayo Tallom Rending vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Tayo Tallom Rending, proprietor of M/s Tayo Enterprises, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Jonai P.S. Case No. 162/2021, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had obtained interim pre-arrest bail on March 10, 2025, and subsequently appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.), cooperating with the investigation and submitting GST documents. The State respondent, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, noted that the petitioner was not an FIR-named accused, the FIR was primarily against one Chibang Pal, and a charge-sheet had been filed against Chibang Pal, with the investigation ongoing for other accused persons. The petitioner continued to cooperate after obtaining interim bail.

Held

The Court held that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary. This decision was based on the petitioner's appearance before the Investigating Officer, their cooperation with the investigation, and the fact that they were not an FIR-named accused. The Court considered the submissions from both sides, the materials in the Case Diary, and the petitioner's conduct. The ratio decidendi is that when an accused, not named in the FIR, cooperates with the investigation after obtaining interim pre-arrest bail and custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary, pre-arrest bail should be made absolute. The interim pre-arrest bail granted on March 10, 2025, was made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, considering their cooperation with the investigation and the fact that they are not an FIR-named accused? 2. Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the ongoing investigation? The petitioner argued that they had already appeared before the I.O., cooperated fully with the investigation, and submitted all required GST documents. They expressed readiness to continue cooperating if pre-arrest bail was granted. The State respondent contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, which was primarily against another individual, and that a charge-sheet had already been filed against that individual. The State also acknowledged the petitioner's cooperation after obtaining interim bail.