JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. The petitioner, who has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by way of the order dated 15.02.2017 in relation to Sessions Case No.26(T) of 2013 pending in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, but who has not been set at liberty as yet, has filed this writ petition essentially seeking a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus while also seeking other writs in the nature of Certiorari and Prohibition against such orders and actions of the authorities concerned, whereby his detention is sought to be continued in the name of pendency of other criminal cases and the requirements of his production therein. 2. As noticed hereafter, the petitioner is, and has been, involved in several criminal cases registered at different Police Stations in the State of Meghalaya. It appears that the trial in the aforesaid Sessions Case No.26(T) of 2013 has been taken up in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, in relation to Pynursla P.S. Case No.25(7) of 2012 and relates to offences under Sections 121/121A Indian Penal Code ['IPC'] read with Sections 16,18,38(1) and 38(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ['UAP Act'] and Section 12 of the Indian Passport Act, 1967 ['IP Act']. 3. It appears further that the said trial has reached to the stage of recording of the statement of the accused petitioner. Therein, the petitioner moved an application for bail, which was finally considered and allowed by the learned Trial Court on 15.12.2017. 4. The case of the petitioner is that despite having complied with the bail order, he has not been set at liberty. It is also contended that the bail order itself was supplied belatedly and only on 22.02.2017. 5. The grievances of the petitioner have the genesis in the fact that on 22.02.2017, the Jail authorities at Shillong District Jail received an order from the Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara, South Garo Hills District directing them to produce the petitioner before him through a video link in connection with Baghmara P.S. Case No. 62 (10) of 2011 for offences under Sections 365/34 IPC. According to the petitioner, the Jail authorities attempted to produce him before the said Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara through video link from Shillong at 4.30 p.m. on 22.02.2017 but the video link could not be established, and thereupon, a second order was issued by ADM, Baghmara that the petitioner may be produced at 11.00 a.m. the next morning. 6. It is submitted that on the next date i.e. 23.02.2017, the petitioner was produced before the learned Trial Court at Shillong for recording of his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C'); and after recording of the statements, the Trial Court accepted his bail bonds and the release notice was signed. The petitioner has also pointed out that an application was moved on his behalf apprising the Trial Court of the order of the ADM, Baghmara and raising questions against the same; and after moving of the said application, the Trial Court forwarded the release notice to the jail authorities at about 4:45 p.m. on 23.02.2017. It is also alleged that after receipt of the release notice, the Jail authorities abstained from the production of the petitioner in view of the requirements of Sections 269 (c) Cr.P.C since the period of his custody had already expired. 7. The petitioner submits that the Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara, thereafter, directed the Jail authorities over telephone that the release notice be not processed and the petitioner be kept in custody until the time a formal custody warrant was issued in Baghmara PS Case No. 62 (10) of 2011. Thus, the Jail authorities refused to release him on 23.02.2017. 8. With reference to the aforesaid facts and, of course, while placing on record certain other orders (relevant aspects whereof shall be noticed hereafter), the petitioner has alleged in this writ petition that his continued detention on the so-called oral order by the Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara was entirely illegal and unlawful; and that the authorities acted wholly illegally in not complying with the release orders. It has also been contended that the order to detain the petitioner without any custodial warrant and waiting for arrival of the warrant were the actions entirely illegal and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights. 9. It has also been contended that the order to detain the petitioner without any custodial warrant and waiting for arrival of the warrant were the actions entirely illegal and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights. 9. It has further been contended that the petitioner has wrongly been shown as absconding in relation to the Baghmara case though it was known to the concerned Police authorities that at the relevant time, he was lodged in Shillong District Jail. It is, therefore, prayed in the petition that the orders passed by Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara, be quashed and the petitioner be ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. 10. This petition was filed on 27.02.2017 and on the mention being made, complaining of the denial of right of liberty, was entertained the same day; and the learned Government Advocate was called upon to immediately respond to the averments taken in the writ petition. 11. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, essentially stating the facts that the petitioner was charge sheeted in Baghmara P.S.Case No.62(10) of 2011 on 29.11.2011 and until his arrest [in connection with the aforesaid Pynursla P.S. Case No.25(7) of 2012], he remained an absconder; and that on 10.06.2013, non-bailable warrant was issued in connection with the said Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011. It is also stated that the said order dated 10.06.2013 could not be given effect to due to the transfer of the officer concerned and hence another application was filed by the I/O before the Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara on 04.09.2014 whereupon the Court ordered re-issuance of standing non-bailable warrant against the accused petitioner; and after passing of the aforesaid bail order dated 15.02.2017, the Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara, communicated the warrant for intermediate custody of the petitioner. 12. It has also been alleged in the reply that the petitioner was the Chairman of a terrorist organisation banned under UAP Act and it was in the greater public interest and safety of the State that he remains in custody at least until completion of various cases pending trial in the State of Meghalaya. The respondent has, inter-alia, stated in the affidavit-in-opposition as under: 10. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph 15 of the Petition the deponent begs to state the Petition has misrepresented the fact. The respondent has, inter-alia, stated in the affidavit-in-opposition as under: 10. That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph 15 of the Petition the deponent begs to state the Petition has misrepresented the fact. In this regard the deponent chargesheeted in Baghmara P.S. Case No.62/10/2011 U/S 120 B, 365, 386, 109 IPC and the charge sheet was filed on 29.11.2011. From the aforesaid fact it is revealed that until the arrest of accused on 30.7.2016 (sic) he was absconding in connection with Baghmara P.S.Case No.62/10/2011. 11. That the deponent begs to state in connection with Baghmara P.S.Case No.62(10)/2011 U/S 365/34 IPC, on 10.06.2013 a standing non-bailable warrant was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, South Garo Hills. The copy of the Order dated 10.06.2013 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-1. 12. That the deponent begs to state that as the Order dated 10.06.2013 could not be given into effect, due to transfer of the O.C., Baghmara, another application was filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court of Additional District Magistrate(J), South Garo Hills, Baghmara on 04.09.2014 with a prayer for standing non bailable warrant. The Hon'ble Court on 04.09.2014 passed an Order re-issued the standing non bailable warrant through O.C. Sadar, Police Station, Shillong against the accused petitioner. Subsequently, after passing the Order dated 15.02.2017, in 26(T)/2013 by ADJ, Shillong the ADJ, South Garo Hills, Baghmara communicated warrant of immediate (sic) custody on 23.02.2017 to the ADJ, Shillong. The copy of the Order dated 04.09.2014, and the Warrant dated 23.02.2017 are enclosed herewith and marked as annexure-2 & 3 respectively. 13. That the deponent begs to state that in the aforesaid circumstances the accused is to face trial in Baghmara PS Case No.62(10)2011 U/S 365/34 IPC and the concerned court has issued a warrant for intermediate custody which is enclosed as Annexure-3. 14. That the deponent respectfully begs to submit that the petitioner is the Chairman of Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA) which is a banned terrorist organization under Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967) and the notification of Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 12th January' 2012 is enclosed as Annexure-4. Therefore in the event of the release of the petitioner, no useful purpose of the society can be fulfilled. Therefore in the event of the release of the petitioner, no useful purpose of the society can be fulfilled. It is for the greater public interest and safety of the people of the State the accused petitioner may be taken to judicial custody, at least till completion of the various cases pending before the Trial Courts in Meghalaya." 13. Another affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4, the Superintendent of District Jail, Shillong, stating the reasons and circumstances wherefor and where under the petitioner was not released. The said Superintendent of District Jail has, inter-alia, stated as under: "4. That the deponent states that after getting the order from the Hon'ble District and Session Judge on 23.02.2017 the deponent took steps to release the accused petitioner. But as the deponent received a communication from the Addl. District Magistrate, South Garo Hills, Baghmara vide Order dated 22.02.2017 and 23.02.2017 the process could not be completed. As per the Order of the Addl. District Magistrate, South Garo Hills, Baghmara the accused petitioner has already been charge sheeted under Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10)2012 U/S 365/34 IPC and he was required to produce through video conference on 22nd February, 2017 at 4:30 P.M. 5. That the deponent states on 22.02.2017 the video conference could not be taken up due to technical problem so the matter was again fixed on 23.02.2017. On that day the accused petitioner did not appear in the video conference because of his health problem. 6. That the deponent states that in the Baghmara case the accused petitioner custody warrant was sent by the Addl. District Magistrate, South Garo Hills to the office of the District Jail, Shillong by Whatsapp only on 23.02.2017 at around 8:00 P.M. 7. That the deponent respectfully submit that he has immense regard to the order passed by the Hon'ble Court and he has no adversity to defy in order passed by the Hon'ble Court. Under the above circumstances he is not able to release the accused petitioner." 14. During the course of consideration of this matter, it has unfailingly appeared on the face of the record that the petitioner is, and has been, involved in several criminal cases. In response to our queries, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking to state the list of criminal cases pending against him with their respective status. In response to our queries, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking to state the list of criminal cases pending against him with their respective status. On behalf of the petitioner, particulars were also sought from the Superintendent of District Jail whereupon it has been indicated that the petitioner was being held on the basis of two custody warrants : one relating to the aforesaid Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011 and second relating to Dalu P.S. Case No.49(11) of 2011. The aforesaid communication from the Superintendent District Jail, Shillong to the lawyer of the petitioner, reads as under : "Please find herewith the below mentioned documents which is in the possession of this office in connection with all the criminal cases of Shri Champion R. Sangma, UTP lodged at District Jail, Shillong. At present, this office has only 2(two) Custody Warrant against Shri Champion R Sangma which we have received from the Hon'ble Court of ADM, Baghmara in connection with Baghmara Ps C/No.62(10)11 u/s 365/34 IPC and from the Hon'ble Court of JMFC West Garo Hills, Tura in connection with Dalu PS C/no.49(11)11 U/s 109/387 IPC R/s 27(2) Arms Act and 12(a) IPP Act, the above mentioned Custody Warrants were received by this office on 23.02.2017 at around 8.00 Pm (by Whatapps) and on 25.02.2017 at around 10.00 am respectively." 15. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has also referred to six such cases where formal warrants of arrest were executed and where he was granted bail by the Court concerned. The petitioner has further referred to one case in which he was discharged on 09.01.2017. The petitioner has, thereafter, referred to six other cases where allegedly there were no standing warrants of arrest but production warrants had been issued from time to time and he had been produced before the respective Courts through video link (in one such case, the petitioner is said to have been admitted to bail). 16. The relevant averments in paragraph 8 of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner could be taken note of as under:\ "8. That the Jail authorities have furnished details of seven cases, where there is no standing Warrant of Arrest; however Production warrants have been issued from time to time and the Petitioner has been produced before the respective Honourable Courts through video link. That the Jail authorities have furnished details of seven cases, where there is no standing Warrant of Arrest; however Production warrants have been issued from time to time and the Petitioner has been produced before the respective Honourable Courts through video link. (I) Wiliamnagar GR(w) C/No.50/2105 (Copy of production warrant enclosed herewith as Annexure 10) (II) Williamnagar GR(w) C/No.62/2014(copy of production warrant enclosed herewith as Annexure 11) (III) Wiliamnagar GR(w) C/No.140/2010(Copy of production warrant enclosed herewith as annexure 12) (IV) Dalu PS C/No.49(11) 11(Copy of production warrant enclosed herewith as Annexure 13) (V) Nongstoin Special C/No.5/2015 – Bail Granted; Summons Order, Sessions Judge, Nongstoin (VI) Tura PS C/No.25(7)2012" 17. Thereafter, the process sought to be adopted in relation to Baghmara P.S. Case No. 62 (10) of 2011, is questioned on behalf of the petitioner in the following:- "9. That with respect to the standing Non Bailable Warrant issued in the Baghmara PS C/No.62(10) 11 U/S 365/34 IPC, the Authorities have furnished two Orders:- (I) The Order dated 04.09.14 by the learned ADM, Baghmara records that a non-bailable warrant was issued on 10.06.13, but not executed since the accused was already in custody in sessions case 26(T) 2013. It further records that warrant has since been misplaced. (Copy of Order enclosed herewith as Annexure 14) (II) The Order dated 10.09.14 of the SP, East Khasi Hills, Shillong to whom the Warrant had been endorsed stating that the accused is in detention under MPDA and the warrant may be executed when he is released from MPDA detention. It is humbly submitted that this shows both a circumvention of the judicial process and is in violation of principles of natural justice laid down in Udai Chand v. Sheikh Abdullah 1983 SCC (Cri.) 529. It also shows explicitly that the warrant has never been executed. (Copy of Order dated 10.09.14 enclosed herewith as Annexure 15" 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the manner in which the petitioner is sought to be detained despite having been ordered to be released on bail and despite release notice having been issued remains entirely illegal and unlawful. (Copy of Order dated 10.09.14 enclosed herewith as Annexure 15" 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the manner in which the petitioner is sought to be detained despite having been ordered to be released on bail and despite release notice having been issued remains entirely illegal and unlawful. Learned counsel would argue that the suggestion about existence of a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in relation to Baghmara P.S. Case No.62 (10) of 2011 remains entirely baseless because, even the particulars of the said Baghmara case were not stated in the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in the case pending trial in the Shillong Court; and no arguments regarding standing non-bailable warrant were advanced before the Court during consideration of the bail application. It is also submitted that on the alleged date of issuance of non-bailable warrant i.e., 10.06.2013, the petitioner was already in custody in relation to the Shillong case and he remained so even at the time of passing of the other order dated 04.09.2014 in Baghmara case and hence, he could not have been treated to be an absconder. Learned counsel would refer to Sections 267 and 269(c) of the Cr.P.C to submit that the methodology of issuance and execution of production warrant remains entirely impermissible in the present case because, even if an order was issued by the ADM, Baghmara on 22.02.2017 for production of the petitioner, it was rendered infructuous when the period of custody of the petitioner got over with issuance of the release notice; and such production warrant cannot be considered to be an authorisation to keep the petitioner in custody until the date on which his production is sought for. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the bail order having been issued in favour of the petitioner and there being no other lawful order for his detention in relation to the other case, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his liberty pursuant to the bail order passed and release notice issued. Learned counsel has also submitted that in other cases, though the petitioner was allegedly produced by way of production orders but, had not been shown arrested or else, he would have applied for regular bail as he had applied in other cases. 19. Learned counsel has also submitted that in other cases, though the petitioner was allegedly produced by way of production orders but, had not been shown arrested or else, he would have applied for regular bail as he had applied in other cases. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Uday Chand and others v. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J & K and others: (1983) SCC (Cri) 529, Ram Dass Ram v. State of Bihar and another: 1987 (Supp) SCC 143 and has further relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Muthuramalingam v. State in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1151 of 2010 decided on 01.07.2010; Gauhati High Court in the case of Dr. A. Loso v. State of Manipur: 1988 CriLJ 1458; and Rajasthan High Court in the case of Chokha Alias Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan: 2005 CriLJ 4708. 20. While opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, learned GA has placed before us for perusal the record of G.R. No.98 of 2011 relating to Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011 and has submitted that in fact, the charge sheet had already been filed in the said case on 29.09.2011 and at the relevant time, the petitioner remained an absconder and could not be apprehended. Later on, a prayer was made before the Court on 10.06.2013 for issuance of non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the petitioner and this prayer was granted by the ADM, Baghmara. However, as the said non-bailable warrant was found misplaced with the transfer of the earlier Officer-in-Charge of Baghmara police station, while granting the prayer made by the succeeding Officer-in-Charge of Baghmara police station, the learned ADM, Baghmara re-issued the standing non-bailable warrant for production of the petitioner in relation to Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011 [G.R. No.98 of 2011]. Thus, according to the learned GA, the ADM, Baghmara has rightly issued the order essentially intended at securing the production of petitioner in the said Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011. Thus, according to the learned GA, the ADM, Baghmara has rightly issued the order essentially intended at securing the production of petitioner in the said Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011. The learned GA has also referred to the criminal cases against the petitioner and has submitted that admittedly, in at least four such cases, the petitioner was being produced while being in custody by way of production warrant and has argued that the cases are of serious nature involving grave offences where the petitioner was not granted bail. Learned GA would further argue that the provisions as contained in Chapter XXII of Cr.P.C do not directly apply by virtue of Section 1(2) of the Cr.P.C and as per the applicable Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District, the authorities concerned have duly acted on the spirit of Cr.P.C; and have issued justified orders preventing release of the petitioner, as his detention and production is required in relation to the said Baghmara case as also several other cases. 21. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and having examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that continued detention of the petitioner cannot be said to be unlawful and no case for issuance of any writ or order or direction in favour of the petitioner is made out. 22. It remains indisputable and is rather evident that the petitioner is involved in several criminal cases relating, inter alia, to the offences under Sections 120A, 121, 121A, 122, 302, 364A, 307, 365, 387 IPC as also varying offences under the UPA Act, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act and IP Act. 23. Having regard to the submissions sought to be made, it is rather necessary and appropriate to comprehensively take note of the pending cases as also the status of the petitioner in relation to such cases. In response to our query, some of the particulars of such cases have been stated in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today. As per the own showing of the petitioner, he was being produced in some cases by way of production warrant. In response to our query, some of the particulars of such cases have been stated in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today. As per the own showing of the petitioner, he was being produced in some cases by way of production warrant. Upon examination of the record, we find that some of the requisite details had appeared in an order issued by the Hon'ble Governor on 16.06.2015, which was duly endorsed to the petitioner; and a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-5 with this petition. Before referring to the contents of the said order dated 16.06.2015, we may indicate the background in which the said order came to be issued. 24. Such background aspects had been that two preventive detention orders were made against the petitioner: one dated 29.01.2013 by the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar and another dated 30.01.2013 by the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills District, Tura. The said order dated 30.01.2013 as passed by the District Magistrate, West Garo Hills District, Tura was set aside by this Court by the order dated 22.05.2013. However, it appears that the other detention order dated 29.01.2013 was not interfered with by this Court and hence, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No.2149 of 2015, leading to Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2015. The said Criminal Appeal was considered and allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.05.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the position that the petitioner was implicated in as many as eight cases and that he was in jail and he was not granted bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further found that no satisfaction had been recorded by the authorities that they had reason to believe that there was real possibility of the petitioner's release on bail; and rather there was no mention if any bail application was moved by the petitioner. In those circumstances and looking to the rather self-defeating averments made in the counter affidavit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the said detention order was suffering from material illegality and hence, allowed the appeal while observing, inter alia, as under :- "In the present case, as already pointed out above, the appellant was under incarceration as he is implicated in as many as 8 cases. In fact till date he is in jail and has not been granted bail. In fact till date he is in jail and has not been granted bail. In view of the above, it was for the respondents to satisfy the Court as to whether the triple requirements, as postulated above, stand satisfied in the present case. We find that the respondents have miserably failed to fulfil this requirement. In the instant case, though the detention order and even the grounds of detention record the factum of appellant's being in custody, no satisfaction has been recorded by the detaining authority that there was reliable material before the authority on the basis of which it would have reasons to believe that there was real possibility of his release on bail. It is not mentioned as to whether any bail application was even moved by the appellant or not, what to take out likely fate of such an application. The order is also conspicuously silent on the aspect as to whether there was any probability of indulging in activity if the appellant would be released on bail" 25. After passing of the aforesaid order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order dated 16.06.2015 was issued by the Governor, detailing out the case in which the petitioner was involved and particularly, the cases in which the petitioner was specifically found to be in custody and where he did not file the bail application. In the said order dated 16.06.2015, the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in relation to the aforesaid Baghmara P.S. Case No. 62 (10) of 2011 was also distinctly stated while giving out that the said warrant was to be executed. The said order dated 16.06.2015, stating the details of pending criminal cases and the status of the petitioner as on 16.06.2015, is reproduced, in extenso, as under: "Government of Meghalaya Political Department Order by the Governor Dated Shillong the 16th June, 2015 No.Pol.84/2013/259:- In compliance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal appeal No.827 of 2015 ( Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.2149/2015) the detention of Shri Champion R. Sangma vide order No.EGH/CON. 189(MPDA)/2013/3 dated 29-1-2013 of the District Magistrate, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar under sub-section(1) of section 3 of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 and approved by the Government vide order No.POL 17/2013/106 dated 05-02-2013 is hereby revoked and Shri Champion R. Sangma is hereby released with immediate effect in so far as his detention under MPDA is concerned. However, Shri Champion R. Sangma stands involved in different criminal cases, the details of such cases are delineated herein below District wise with the status of such cases including the fact as to whether the Accused is admitted to bail in any of such cases. East Khasi Hills, Shillong Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether arrested Bail status 1 Pynursla PS Case No. 25(07)2012 u/s 120(A)/120(B)/121(A) IPC r/w sec.16/38(1)(2) UA(P) Act and section 12 Indian Passport Act The case is charge sheeted and is pending trial Yes No bail West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether arrested Bail status 1 Nongstoin PS case No.9(2)2012 under section 121/353/307/34 IPC r/w section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and section 27(2) Arms Act The case is pending investigation and will be charge sheeted soon. Yes Secured bail Nongstoin PS case No.10(2)2012 under section 121(A)/302/34 IPC r/w section 10/13 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and section 27(3) of Arms Act. F.R. vide Ngn PS F.R. No.39/2013 dated 07.08.2013 Yes Secured bail East Garo Hills, Williamnagar Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether arrested Bail status 1 Williamnagar PS Case No.21(5)2010 U/S 353/307/34 IPC r/w section 27 Arms Act & 5 Explosive Substance Act. Charge Sheet No.9/2014 dated 27.3.2014 No 2 Williamnagar PS Case No.43(9)2010 u/s 121(B)/121/121(A)/364(A)/384/353/307 IPC r/w section 27 Arms Act & 5 Explosive Substance Act. Charge Sheet No.22/2015 dated 25.5.2015 Yes No bail 3 Williamnagar PS Case No.9 (1) 2011 u/s 121/121(A) 121 (B)/ 122/353/307 IPC r/w sec.27 Arms Act & Explosive Substance Act Charge Sheet No.8/2014 dated 26.3.2014 No 4 Williamnagar PS Case No.90(12)2011 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/353/307/34 IPC r/w section 27 Arms Act & 5 Explosive Sub. Act. Charge Sheet No.23/2015 dated 25..2015 No 5 Williamnagar PS Case No.49(7) 2012 u/s 120 (B)/121/122/302/307/353 IPC r/w sec.25(1-A)(1-B)/27 Arms Act & 10/13 UA(P) Act. Pending investigation No 6 Williamnagar PS Case No.52 (8) 2012 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A) 122/307/326/34 IPC r/w section 27 Arms Act & Act 10/13/16 UA(P) Act. Pending investigation No 7 Rongjeng PS Case No.28(11)2011 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/353/326/307/302/427 IPC r/w sec.25(1-A)(1-B)/27 Arms Act. Pending investigation No 6 Williamnagar PS Case No.52 (8) 2012 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A) 122/307/326/34 IPC r/w section 27 Arms Act & Act 10/13/16 UA(P) Act. Pending investigation No 7 Rongjeng PS Case No.28(11)2011 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/353/326/307/302/427 IPC r/w sec.25(1-A)(1-B)/27 Arms Act. Charge Sheet No.19/2015 dated 22.5.2015 Yes No bail 8 Songsak PS Case No.07(05)2010 u/s 120/121(A)/122 IPC r/w section 25(1-A)(1-B) Arms Act Pending investigation No 9 Wiliamnagar PS Case No.13(4)10 u/s 365/34 IPC F.R. No.87/11 dated 21.12.11 No 10 Williamnagar PS Case No.18(4)10 u/s 384/511 IPC F.R. No.66/11 dated 30.9.11 No 11 Mendipathar PS Case No.25(4)10 U/S 395 IPC r/w section 25(1-a)(1-b) Arms Act. Case disposed in F.R. No West Garo Hills, Tura Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether arrested 1 Tura PS Case No.196(7)11 u/s 120(B)/121/121(A)/122/427/506/34 IPC r/w sec.27(1) Arms Act Pending investigation No 2 Tura PS Case No.258(10)11 u/s 365/302/34 IPC r/w section 27 Arms Act. F.R. No.91/14 dated 14.5.2014 No 3 Tura PS Case No.297(12)11 u/s 365/120(B)/121(A)/122/34 IPC r/w section 27 Arms Act. Pending investigation No 4 Tura PS Case No.69(4)12 u/s 384/506/511/120(B)/121/121(A) IPC r/w sec.10/13 ULA(P) Act. F.R. NO.95/14 dated 20.5.2014 No 5 Tura PS Case No.82(4)12 u/s 120(B)/121(A)/506 IPC r/w section 10/13 ULAP Act. Pending investigation Yes Secured bail 6 Tura PS Case No.83(5)12 u/s 120(B)/121(A)/506 IPC r/w section 10/13 ULAP Act. F.R. No.25/14 dated 25.2.2014 No 7 Dalu PS Case No.49(11)11 u/s 109/387 IPC r/w section 27(2)Arms Act and 12(A) IPP Act.3 Charge Sheet No.11/2012 dated 19.7.2012 No South Garo Hills, Ampati Sl.No. Cases Reasons/Status Whether arrested Bail status 1 Baghmara PS Case No.62(10)2011 u/s 365/34 IPC. This case has been charged sheeted on 29/11/2011 Standing NBWA dated 10.6.2013 by ADM(J) SGH issued to be executed by O/C Sardar PS Shillong Not yet 2 Chokpot PS Case No.13(9)2011 u/s 120(B)/121(A)/122/307/341/427 IPC Champion R. Sangma shown arrested. Case is pending investigation. Yes No bail Thus out of the cases pending against the Accused, the Accused is in custody in the following cases as indicated herein below and in the said cases even the Accused has not filed any bail application and so therefore the question of granting/and or declining bail cannot and does not arise. (i) Williamnagar P.S. Case No.43(9)2010 u/s 121(B)/121/121-A 364(A)/384/353/307 IPC r/w Section 27 of Arms Act and 5 Explosives Substance Act. (ii) Rongjeng P.S.Case No.28(10)2011 u/s 120(B)/121/121-A/122 353/326/307/302/427 IPC R/W. Section 25(1-A)(1-B)/27 of Arms Act. (i) Williamnagar P.S. Case No.43(9)2010 u/s 121(B)/121/121-A 364(A)/384/353/307 IPC r/w Section 27 of Arms Act and 5 Explosives Substance Act. (ii) Rongjeng P.S.Case No.28(10)2011 u/s 120(B)/121/121-A/122 353/326/307/302/427 IPC R/W. Section 25(1-A)(1-B)/27 of Arms Act. (iii) Chokpot P.S.Case No.13(9)2011 u/s 120-B/121(A)/122 307/341/427 IPC In so far as the Non-bailable warrant is concerned, there is an NBWA dated 10.6.2013 issued by ADM(J), South Garo Hills in connection with Baghmara PS Case No.62(10)2011 u/s 365/34 IPC against the Accused which has to be executed. By order of the Governor of Meghalaya Sd/- (F. Kharlyngdoh) Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya Political Department Memo.NO.POL.84/2013/259-A, Dated Shillong 16th June, 2015 Copy forwarded to:- 1. The Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. The Commissioner of Division for Garo Hills Division, Meghalaya, Shillong. 3. The District Magistrate, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong. 5. The Superintendent of Police, East Garo Hills, Wiliamnagar with two spare copies, one for service and return and one for retention in Jail.(It should be ensured that the detenue signs in the presence of the Jailor/Superintendent of District Jail and a certificate may be appended accordingly on the body of the Order to be returned to Government). 6. The Superintendent District Jail, Shilong with two spare copies, one for service and return and one for retention in Jail.(It should be ensured that the detenue signs in the presence of the Jailor/Superintendent of District Jail and a certificate may be appended accordingly on the body of the Order to be returned to Government). 7. Shri Champion R. Sangma, C/o. Superintendent, District Jail, Shillong. 8. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110 001. By Order etc., Joint Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya Political Department" 26. It is but clear that while some of the cases against the petitioner are still pending investigation, in various other cases, charge sheets have been filed. At least in relation to two such cases, the petitioner had specifically been shown as arrested and bail had not been granted. The aforesaid order dated 16.06.2015 has not been shown as carrying incorrect particulars nor it is the case of the petitioner that all the referred cases have come to an end. At least in relation to two such cases, the petitioner had specifically been shown as arrested and bail had not been granted. The aforesaid order dated 16.06.2015 has not been shown as carrying incorrect particulars nor it is the case of the petitioner that all the referred cases have come to an end. Of course, certain subsequent events appear to have taken place, one being of the grant of bail in Sessions Case No.26(T) of 2013 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong [pertaining to Pynursla P.S. Case No.25(7) of 2012]; and another being in relation to Chockpot P.S. Case No.13(9) of 2011 when it is asserted that the petitioner has been granted bail therein on 14.06.2016. Having regard to the material placed on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been arrested in relation to at least two other cases where charge sheets have been filed. It is also apparent that the petitioner is wanted in several other charge-sheeted cases. In an overall comprehension of the matter, we are clearly of the view that even if the petitioner had been produced in some cases by way of production warrant and by way of video link, this procedure cannot take away the substance of the matter and cannot nullify his detention in relation to such cases where he is shown to have been arrested. 27. Now coming to Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011, we find that the submissions sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner fall short of making out a case of illegal and unlawful detention. It was sought to be suggested in the first place by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions as if the particulars of this Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011 were earlier not supplied to the petitioner but after re-examining the record, the learned counsel has corrected her stand. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that in the said case, charge sheet was filed on 29.11.2011. The petitioner was arrested in relation to Pynursla P.S. Case No.25(7) of 2012 on 20.07.2012 and before that, he was absconding in relation to the said Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that in the said case, charge sheet was filed on 29.11.2011. The petitioner was arrested in relation to Pynursla P.S. Case No.25(7) of 2012 on 20.07.2012 and before that, he was absconding in relation to the said Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011. In the given circumstances, the officers in charge of Baghmara Police Station prayed for issuance of non-bailable warrant and the same was issued on 10.06.2013 and was re-issued on 04.09.2014. While such warrant remained to be executed and the petitioner was in detention in District Jail at Shillong, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara cannot be faulted in issuing directions to the concerned jail authorities for production of the petitioner and then issuing directions for intermediate custody of the petitioner. 28. The case at Baghmara is not a freshly instituted case nor any new process has been issued only in order to frustrate the bail order passed by the Shillong Court. The authorities concerned had to ensure the custody and production of the petitioner in relation to the said Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011 which relates to offences under Sections 365/34 IPC. In the overall circumstances of the case, we are unable to take any exception against the procedure as adopted and process as issued by the concerned authorities in relation to Baghmara P.S. Case No.62(10) of 2011 against the petitioner. It is also noticed that the related provisions of Cr.P.C do not directly apply to these cases. Of course, the procedure to be adopted by the concerned authorities/Courts is to be guided by the spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per Rule 23 of the Administration of Justice and Police in the Garo Hills District Rules. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the authorities cannot be said to have acted against the spirit of the basic rules of procedure. In the ultimate analysis, we are unable to find the present one to be a case of any unlawful detention or deprivation of personal liberty without due process of law. 29. The decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, essentially proceeding on their own peculiar facts have no application to the present case. In the ultimate analysis, we are unable to find the present one to be a case of any unlawful detention or deprivation of personal liberty without due process of law. 29. The decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, essentially proceeding on their own peculiar facts have no application to the present case. In the case of Ram Dass Ram (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the concerned petitioner had already been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC in one case and of charge under Sections 307/324/34 IPC in the other and there was no justification for detaining him in jail. It was also noticed that the petitioner had been in jail for more than eight years. In the given circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the Judicial Magistrate concerned was not justified in issuing production warrant against the petitioner at mere askance in relation to a case involving offences under Sections 147/148/323/324 IPC while observing that the petitioner, even if to be convicted for such offences, would have, in the meantime, served out the sentence. 30. In the case of Uday Chand (supra), it was found that the petitioners, who were granted bail by the Supreme Court, were subsequently arrested for some other offences alleged to have been committed by them prior to the date of granting of bail. In the given circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the authorities concerned ought to have apprised the Court before taking the persons in custody, especially when no disclosure about their cases was made at the time of passing the order of bail. 31. On the basis of the aforesaid decision in Uday Chand's case, it has been argued that the matter relating to Baghmara case was not stated at the time of grant of bail to the petitioner on 15.02.2017. However, as noticed above, Baghmara P.S Case No.62(10) of 2011 has not been newly instituted by the respondents; and non-bailable warrant therein had been issued much before passing of the bail order dated 15.02.2017. This is apart from the fact that the petitioner is said to be not on bail in relation to at least two other cases. Thus, the aforesaid decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. 32. This is apart from the fact that the petitioner is said to be not on bail in relation to at least two other cases. Thus, the aforesaid decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. 32. Similarly, the observations made by the other Hon'ble High Courts in the referred cases are of no assistance to the petitioner for the reasons and circumstances already indicated above. 33. With reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Dr A Loso (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that it was the duty of the Police to disclose the particulars of pending cases to an accused in which he was yet to be arrested and also to the Magistrate before whom the accused was forwarded on arrest so that he would come to know about his likely arrest at any time in those pending cases. Such observations have no bearing on the present case because, as noticed above, on a substantial number of occasions, the petitioner has been informed of the pending cases against him. This apart, it is noticed that even while making such observations in Dr A. Loso's case, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court did not extend direct liberty to the said petitioner but adopted a different course that the officer in charge of Imphal Police Station was directed to disclose the particulars of all pending criminal cases against the said petitioner within four weeks so that he could take steps in relation to such cases and the petitioner was permitted to submit bail the bonds only after expiry of such a period of four weeks. Further dilatation on the referred decisions does not appear requisite for the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, as already indicated above. 34. In the conclusion of what has been discussed herein above, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed and process issued by Additional District Magistrate, Baghmara against the petitioner; and we do not find that the detention of the petitioner is unlawful or unauthorised. 35. In view of the foregoing, this petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.