Staff Reporter
ITANAGAR, 24 Jan: The Gauhati High Court’s Itanagar Bench on Friday quashed the bail granted to IAS officer Talo Potom, accused in a high-profile abetment to suicide case, directing that he be taken into custody with immediate effect.
Potom had been granted bail by the sessions court in Yupia on 4 November, 2025.
Nineteen-year-old Gomchu Yekar, who died by suicide on 23 October, 2025 in his rented house in Lekhi village, Naharlagun, had named Potom and engineer late Likwang Lowang in suicide notes. Lowang shot himself on the same day in Khonsa after his name appeared in the suicide notes.
Passing the order, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer held that the trial court had ignored crucial evidence and legal principles while granting bail to the accused in November last year.
The court termed the earlier order “perverse,” and said it was passed without proper application of mind.
Yekar’s father, Tagom Yekar, had moved the high court seeking cancellation of bail, alleging systematic mental harassment, sexual exploitation and corruption-related pressure by the accused, as mentioned in the suicide notes left behind by the deceased.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the accused, a senior public servant, was granted bail within seven days of arrest, despite the investigation being at a preliminary stage. It was also submitted that deleted WhatsApp chats and voice messages were still under forensic examination.
The special investigation team (SIT) informed the court that forensic analysis has confirmed the suicide notes to be in the handwriting of the deceased. It stated also that custodial interrogation could not be conducted earlier due to law and order concerns.
Observing that the lower court had conducted a “mini trial” at the bail stage and even speculated about the victim’s mental health without evidence, the high court said such findings were unwarranted and legally flawed.
“The offence had shocked the collective conscience of society and involved an influential person. Releasing him at such a nascent stage of investigation could derail the probe,” the court noted.
Allowing the petition, the bench set aside the November 2025 bail order and directed immediate arrest of the accused. However, it granted him liberty to apply for fresh bail before the trial court, if advised.
The court further flagged that, in spite of the fact that suicide notes had been recovered and sent to the FSL and the FSL report had not been received at the time when the bail application was taken up, this factor was not taken into consideration by the lower court.
“The court also failed to consider that such suicide notes named the accused/Respondent 2 and therefore constituted material prima facie evidence against the accused and could not have been dismissed so lightly at the stage of bail,” the high court judge pointed out.
It further noted that the trail court had failed to take into consideration the fact that the investigating agency had not been given an opportunity to take Respondent No 2 into custody for investigation, as he was sent to judicial custody immediately upon his arrest.
