Supreme Court Stays Cancellation Of Arunachal Pradesh IAS Officer Talo Potom's Bail In Suicide Case

The Supreme Court today stayed the Gauhati High Court order which cancelled the bail granted to Arunachal Pradesh IAS officer Talo Potom in the suicide case of 19-year old Gomchu Yekar.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (for Talo Potom). It directed that Potom shall cooperate with the investigation.

To recap, the case arises out of the tragic demise of 19-year old Gomchu Yekar, who is stated to have died by suicide at his rented house in Lekhi village on 23.10.2025. As per claims, the deceased left behind suicide notes disclosing systematic mental harassment, sexual exploitation, corruption-related activities, and exposure to HIV/AIDS by the accused persons.

Talo Potom was arrested on 27.10.2025 and came to be enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court within 7 days of his arrest. The bail order of November 4 was challenged by the deceased's father before the High Court, which cancelled Potom's bail and ordered that he be taken into custody forthwith.

"In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court completely ignored relevant materials necessitating further custody of the accused and granted bail without proper application of mind. The release of an influential person like the respondent No.2/accused at such a nascent stage of the investigation, when there was a clear prima facie case against him would have derailed the entire investigation process", the High Court observed.

Pertinently, in the proceedings before the trial court, the prosecution informed that Whatsapp chats and voice messages exchanged between the accused and the deceased were deleted by the accused. As such, the relevant handsets had been forwarded to FSL for analysis and the results were pending. It was also highlighted that the accused did not enter police custody due to law and order problems and was straightaway sent to judicial custody.

Perusing the bail order, the High Court noted that the trial court erred by going into the merits of the case and conducting a mini trial. It further observed that the trial court could not have lightly dismissed the fact that Potom was named in the suicide note, which constituted material prima facie evidence against him.

Aggrieved, Potom approached the Supreme Court.

Case Title: TALO POTOM Versus THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 1699/2026