Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 321 (GAU)

State Of Nagaland v. Umesh Singh

2017-03-14

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. Heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned P.R, Nagaland for the applicants and also heard Mr. N.K. Luikham. learned counsel for the opposite party/accused. 2. The State of Nagaland by these three petitions has approached this Court for cancellation of the bail order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kohima wherein the learned Sessions Judge had granted bail to the opposite party/accused in all the three cases viz (i)GR.No. 101/2008, Kohima (N) PS Case ] No.41/08, U/S 302 IPC, (it) G.R No.322/07, ] KMA (N) P.S Case No. 104/07, U/S 365 IPC R/W 7 NSR & (iii) GR No.3 52/06, KMA (N) P.S Case No. 175/06, U/S 302 IPC R/W 7/8 NSR. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is very short, therefore, the same is reproduced here below; "Bail order reserved on 11.8.16 is passed as under. Counsel Mich submitted that accused is booked under three different cases (1) GR. 101/08 (2) GR 322/07 and (3) GR. 352/06. In all the cases, charge sheet already filed and pending disposal/trial. The petitioner/bailor is a Govt servant working under Medical Department C.M.O Office Dimapur who is reliable and assured that in the event of accused is released, will produce as and when called by Court for trial. Since charge is submitted there is no question of tampering the evidence nor obstructing the investigation. In view of the above, pray to consider the bail. Prosecution submitted that accused was absconding for last few years and only few months back accused was arrested and brought to Nagaland. Hence, if released on bail he will jump bail. As such, objected to bail. Heard both the counsels. Satisfied. In similar case in Dimapur Court has granted bail. The bailor is reliable and a Govt, servant. In view of the above consideration, bail is granted to accused with surety bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- (fifty thousand) each in all the three cases with a local surety of like amount with the conditions to appear before Court as and when call. Accused should not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the Court. Accused is further directed to report in the Court on 08.09.16 for consideration of charge in the respective cases. Sd/- (Y. Maongkaba lmchen) NJS Principal District & Sessions Judge Kohima: Nagaland." 3. The learned P.P. Ms. Accused should not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the Court. Accused is further directed to report in the Court on 08.09.16 for consideration of charge in the respective cases. Sd/- (Y. Maongkaba lmchen) NJS Principal District & Sessions Judge Kohima: Nagaland." 3. The learned P.P. Ms. V. Suokhrie who appeared on behalf of all the petitioners in the three petitions submitted as follows;- (i) That the opposite party/accused is a hardcore member of NSCN (IM), and he has been involved in killing of many people and in many illegal and unlawful activities against the State. That after thorough investigation of all the three cases, investigation machinery has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials to support that he was involved in the commission of all the crimes registered in the three cases. Therefore, efforts were made for his arrest in connection with three cases. However, the opposite party/accused eluded arrest for a long time and could not be arrested. As such, charge-sheets were filed in all the three cases involving his name but in his absence. (ii) That in the meanwhile, the learned Sessions Judge, Dimapur granted bail to the accused vide his order dated 18.4.12, in connection with Dimapur East Police Station Case No. 125/11, corresponding to GR Case No. 237/2011. But as the accused was in jail in Uttar Pradesh in connection with a case in Nagra, he was not in a position to furnish the bail bound and surety bond, therefore, he was produced before the Dimapur Court. It was only then that the Investigation Officers of all three cases came to know that he was in Dimapur jail. Therefore, the Investigation Officers took immediate action by submitting an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Kohima praying for issuance of production warrant against the opposite party/accused in connection with three eases. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Kohima vide his order dated 23.05.2016, directed that the accused be produced in connection with the three cases. And when he was brought to Kohima he was remanded to Police custody and was interrogated by joint interrogation team consisting of the Assam Rifles, CRPF, BSF, SIB, Intelligence arid Police. During his interrogation, the opposite party/accused admitted that he is a member of NSCN (IM) and was closely associated with high ranking functionaries of the organization like SS General Han-sing and SS General Markson Tangkhul. During his interrogation, the opposite party/accused admitted that he is a member of NSCN (IM) and was closely associated with high ranking functionaries of the organization like SS General Han-sing and SS General Markson Tangkhul. And he also disclosed that he was convicted in a case at his home State involving Arms Act and attempted murder, and admitted further that he was involved in the commission of the crimes registered in the cases given above. (iii) That after the arrest of the opposite party/accused, the Police have been preparing supplementary charge sheets in all the three cases, to be file in the court concerned. However, while this preparation was going on, the learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 17.08.2016, granted bail in all the three cases on grounds which are flimsy, and unreasonable. Therefore, the bail order deserves to be set aside. (iv) That the opposite party/accused being a member of NSCN (IM), and being a person from outside the State and that too with so many criminal cases on his head is most likely to avoid the trials of the criminal cases against him. And in that even it would be very difficult for the prosecution to procure his presence in the Court. The learned P.P. further submitted that the crimes charged against the opposite party/accused are serious in nature and the evidence are strong, therefore, it would be against the interest of justice to keep the opposite party/accused at large. (v) That while the bail matter was heard before the learned Sessions Judge, the same was objected by the prosecution, on the ground that the accused is a hardcore member and important functionary of an unlawful organization and has been involved in killing of many innocent citizens and he have been a terror to the business community and local population of Kohima Town, for years together, and was an absconder, and, only due to providence he could be arrested in connection with the three cases while he was in jail in Dimapur. And a plea that the opposite party/accused being a hardcore member of a dreaded organization, is most likely to intimidate and influence the prosecution witnesses, therefore, should not be allowed to go on bail was also taken. But the objection based on all these grounds was not taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. And a plea that the opposite party/accused being a hardcore member of a dreaded organization, is most likely to intimidate and influence the prosecution witnesses, therefore, should not be allowed to go on bail was also taken. But the objection based on all these grounds was not taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the order which granted bail to the opposite party/accused is vitiated and suffers lfom serious legal infirmities, as such, it deserves to be interfered with and set aside by this Court in the interest of justice. The learned P.P. cited in support of her submission para-10 of the case of Puran v. Ram-bilas & Anr., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 338. 4. In reply, the learned counsel Mr. N.K. Luikham, who appeared on behalf of the opposite party/accused, submitted that rejection of bail application and cancellation of bail already granted are two different things and they arc on deferent footings. The learned Counsel further submitted that when bail is already granted cancellation of the same would amount to depriving a person of his liberty already granted, therefore, the prayer for cancellation of bail should not be allowed in a routine manner unless there are reasons to believe that he is most likely to abscond or has violated the terms and conditions of the bail. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has been under medical treatment for urinary tract problem, therefore, if his bail is cancelled he will face problem for his treatment. The learned counsel cited the cases below in support of his submission:- (i) (2014) 10 SCC 754 , Abdul Bast Raju & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhury & Anr. (para-14) (ii) (2011) 1 SCC 694 . Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (para-86) (iii) (1978) 2 SCC 411 , State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (para-13) (iv) (1978) 1 SCC 240 , Gudikhanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (para-1 and 11) (v) (1984) 1 SCC 284 Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (para-5 & 7) (vi) 2001 (1) GIT 592, State of Manipur v. Pheiroijam Joy Singh (para- 3, 6) 5. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (para-1 and 11) (v) (1984) 1 SCC 284 Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (para-5 & 7) (vi) 2001 (1) GIT 592, State of Manipur v. Pheiroijam Joy Singh (para- 3, 6) 5. I have gone through all the judgments submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party/accused and I have also gone through the judgment submitted by the learned P.P. 'The ratio of all the judgments referred to by the learned counsels is that in cases where bails are already granted, cancellation of such bails should be considered only ii'there are cogent and overwhelming grounds as well as compelling circumstances. Cogent and overwhelming grounds as well as compelling circumstances will include the accused not likely to be easily available for the trial, likelihood of witnesses being intimidated or influenced and evidence being tempered by the accused while at large. And the other ground on which bail order can be cancelled is, if the bail order itself is perverse on the face of it. In this case, as it appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the only ground on which the bail was granted is because the opposite party/accused has been granting bail in a case before Dimapur Court and bailor is reliable person. I find the order of the learned Sessions Judge perverse on the face of it. Because bail in a particular case cannot be granted on the ground that the accused has been granted bail by a Court in connection with another case. Every bail has to be considered on its own merit in connection with the case for which it is filed, and independently of other bail cases which are filed in connection with other cases. Further, the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the fact that the three cases in which the accused is alleged to have been involved and charge sheeted are cases related lo offences which are heinous and which can attract punishment of death or life imprisonment. And the fact that the accused is prima facie a member of an underground organization which is so powerful, therefore, under the name and influence of such organization he is most likely to issue threats to the prosecution witnesses and influence them if he is set at large. And the fact that the accused is prima facie a member of an underground organization which is so powerful, therefore, under the name and influence of such organization he is most likely to issue threats to the prosecution witnesses and influence them if he is set at large. In view of all that has been stated above, I am of the considered opinion that there are grounds which are cogent and overwhelming that calls for cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge. And moreover, I am also of the opinion that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is perverse on the face of it. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.08.2016 of learned Sessions Judge, passed in connection with (i) G.R. No. 101/ 2008, Kohima (N) P.S Case No. 41/08, U/ S 302 IPC, (ii) G.R No.322/07, KMA (N) P.S Case No. 104/07, U/S 365 IPC R/W 7 NSR & (iii) G.R No. 352/06, KMA (N) P.S Case No. 175/06, U/S 302 IPC R/W 7/8 NSR is set aside and bail granted to the opposite party/accused is cancelled. Accordingly, the opposite party/accused is directed to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Kohima on or before 17.3.2017. The learned Sessions Judge, Kohima shall then remand him to jail till the conclusion of the trial of the three cases or till such time when grounds or reasons for granting bail as per law emerges in the process of the trials of the three cases. Send a copy of this order to the Sessions Judge, Kohima immediately. With this, the three applications are disposed of.