Gangtok, 26th September: The District and Sessions Court, Gangtok, on Thursday granted bail to Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF) youth leader Arun Limboo, who had been in custody since September 15 following his arrest in connection with Sadar Police Station Case No. 129/2025. The case had been registered under Sections 152, 352, 353(2), 356(2) and 336(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The matter was heard by Sessions Judge Karma Wangchuk Bhutia in Crl. Misc. Case (Bail) No. 48 of 2025. Limboo, who was represented by Senior Counsel Karma Thinlay assisted by counsels Yasir N. Tamang and Zamyang Norbu Bhutia, had filed his second bail application after his earlier plea was rejected on September 18. Appearing for the State were Additional Advocate General Zangpo Sherpa, Public Prosecutor Yadav Sharma, and APPs Nimkit Lepcha and Sarita Rai. The Investigating Officer, P.I. Anil Subba, was also present in court.
During the hearing, the defence reiterated the submissions made during the earlier bail plea, but stressed that every additional day of detention constituted a change in circumstances. Referring to Mohan Raikwar v. State of M.P. (1999), Senior Counsel argued that Limboo’s continued confinement could not be justified. He further drew the court’s attention to Limboo’s personal situation, pointing out that he is the eldest son in his family and has to care for his elderly parents. The defence underlined that his mother suffers from psychiatric illness and had previously attempted suicide, stressing that his presence at home was essential. To support this plea, counsel cited Bhawani Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2025), where it was observed that temporary bail could be granted on “compelling personal, familial or humanitarian grounds.” The defence also submitted that in a case touching on free speech, Limboo could not be indefinitely detained, citing precedents such as Tejender Pal Singh @ Timma v. State of Rajasthan (2024) and Azaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2025).
Opposing the plea, the State contended that the facts of the matter had already been considered and recorded by the court in its earlier order of September 18, and that the second bail application could not be treated as a review without any substantial change in circumstances. The prosecution cited Kaliya @ Kalu Trinath Gaud v. State of Gujarat (2022) and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2005) to support its argument. It further submitted that Limboo had already raised his family circumstances during the first bail plea, and argued that the claims about his father’s ill health were unfounded, noting that his father was still employed with the PWD. The State emphasised that the investigating agency required more time to probe the case, as Limboo’s mobile phone, which contained the alleged videos, remained locked with a password. The prosecution warned that “if released there is every likelihood of repetition of offence and inciting the youths to rebel against the State” and urged the court to dismiss the application.
In its order, the court recalled that during the previous hearing on September 18, the investigating agency had been granted reasonable time and opportunity to complete the preliminary stage of investigation. Reviewing the case diary, the court noted that “one week has since passed and it appears… that the investigating agency has made some headway with the investigation.” The judge then observed: “Since the preliminary portion of investigation appears to have been completed, I find that further investigation can progress without hindrance and for this purpose, detention of petitioner appears to be unnecessary.”
The court made it clear that it did not intend to go into the merits of the case at this stage but emphasised that a balance had to be struck between investigation and liberty. “Suffice to say that a reasonable time has indeed been provided to the investigating agency and curtailing a citizen’s liberty perpetually would be counterproductive,” the order stated. While acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns, the court said: “The apprehensions of the investigating agency though well-founded, it can be addressed by imposing conditions on bail.”
The court accordingly allowed the bail application, but only on strict terms. Limboo was directed to furnish a personal bond and surety bond of ₹50,000 each. The order laid down multiple conditions: he must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, he must appear before the investigating officer every alternate day for three weeks at Sadar Police Station and thereafter as required, and he must not repeat or commit such offence or post any related videos, messages or content on social media either directly or through any intermediary. He was also restrained from making any comments or public appearances concerning the case under investigation. Furthermore, the court ordered that Limboo must not leave the State of Sikkim without its prior permission and that he must appear before the court on each trial date. The order cautioned in clear terms: “Contravention of any condition(s) mentioned above shall result in immediate cancellation of this bail.”
With these observations, Sessions Judge K.W. Bhutia disposed of the matter and granted bail to Arun Limboo on September 25, noting that further investigation could proceed without his detention and that liberty, once curtailed reasonably, should not be withheld perpetually.
