New Delhi/ Itanagar May 7:
The Supreme Court on Thursday restored the bail granted to Arunachal Pradesh IAS officer Talo Potom in connection with the alleged abetment of suicide case involving 19-year-old Gomchu Yekar.
A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the earlier order of the Gauhati High Court, which had cancelled Potom’s bail and directed him to surrender.
After hearing arguments from the counsel representing the complainant, the apex court observed that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the bail granted earlier by the trial court. The Bench ordered that the bail granted by the Sessions Court would continue to remain in force.
However, the Supreme Court directed that Potom must not threaten, influence, or intimidate the complainant or any witnesses during the course of the trial. The court further stated that any such violation could result in cancellation of bail.
The Bench also clarified that it was refraining from making any observations regarding the contents of the alleged dying declaration and suicide notes, noting that such remarks could prejudice the merits of the ongoing trial.
The case pertains to the death of 19-year-old Gomchu Yekar, who was found dead at his rented accommodation in Lekhi village on October 23, 2025. According to reports, Yekar allegedly left behind suicide notes accusing the accused persons of mental harassment, sexual exploitation, involvement in corruption-related activities, and knowingly exposing him to HIV/AIDS.
Talo Potom was arrested on October 27, 2025, following the registration of the case. Within a week, the Sessions Court granted him bail. The bail order was later challenged by the deceased’s father before the Gauhati High Court.
The High Court subsequently cancelled the bail, observing that the trial court had granted relief without proper application of mind and had allegedly overlooked material evidence, including references made to Potom in the suicide note.
The High Court had also taken note of the prosecution’s concerns regarding the alleged deletion of WhatsApp chats and voice messages, which were later sent for forensic examination. It further observed that releasing an “influential person” at an early stage of investigation could potentially derail the probe.
Challenging the High Court’s order, Potom approached the Supreme Court seeking restoration of bail. While allowing his appeal, the apex court clarified that its observations were confined only to the question of custody and would not influence the trial proceedings or the merits of the case.
