Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 119 (MEG)

Khroo Rymbai v. State of Meghalaya

2022-05-12

WANLURA DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Wanlura Diengdoh, J. - Heard Mr. S.M. Suna, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner has been named in an FIR lodged by one Shri Man Dkhar alleging that he is involved in a case of assault on the night of 05.04.2022, wherein the brother of the complainant Shri. Mul Dkhar was said to have been viciously assaulted and beaten by two people, one of which is the petitioner herein. The FIR was registered as Jowai P.S. Case No. 39(4) 2022, under Sections 307/34 IPC. 2. Being apprehensive of imminent arrest by the police in connection with the said abovementioned case, the petitioner at the first instance, had approached the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jowai on 08.04.2022 with an application praying for grant of pre-arrest bail which was rejected. 3. The petitioner went on to say that the alleged FIR dated 07.04.2022 is faked and incomprehensive, inasmuch as, details of the injuries suffered by the victim has not been pointed out and the weapon of assault was also not clearly described. It is also reliably learnt that the victim was admitted at the hospital only for one day and was discharged thereafter. 4. Again, it is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Khliehtyrshi village, West Jaintia Hills and has good antecedents with no criminal record against him, and if enlarged on bail, he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses, but will fully cooperate with the investigation. 5. It is further submitted that this Court vide order dated 27.04.2022 had granted interim bail to the petitioner with conditions stipulated therein which was duly complied by the petitioner, inasmuch as, he had appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement was also recorded under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. Pointing out that it has always been a precedent and a well followed principle in bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule, while jail is an exception, therefore the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail may be allowed with any conditions to be imposed by this Court as deemed fit and proper. 7. Mr. Pointing out that it has always been a precedent and a well followed principle in bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule, while jail is an exception, therefore the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail may be allowed with any conditions to be imposed by this Court as deemed fit and proper. 7. Mr. A.H. Hazarika, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has submitted that the case diary as called for has been duly produced before this Court and on perusal of the same, this Court will find that the petitioner has duly appeared before the I/O and has also given her statement. Therefore, on perusal of the said case diary, this Court will pass necessary orders in this regard. 8. On consideration of the submissions made, this Court has also perused the case diary and from the contents of the same, it can be seen that the fact that the victim Shri. Mul Dkhar has indeed sustained injuries on his person when on 06.04.2022 at about 11:00/11:30 A.M., he was found by some villagers lying by the roadside bleeding all over the face and severely injured. The police on being informed immediately came to the place of occurrence and shifted the injured to Jowai Civil Hospital where he was initially given treatment and was then referred to NEIGRIHMS, Shillong where he was treated for the said injuries. 9. On being discharged from the hospital, the victim was questioned by the I/O and his version of the incident was noted down. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where the victim has narrated that on 05.04.2022, in the evening, he was in the house of his friend and about 9:00 P.M., he left the house to go to the house of his brother Shri. Lang Dkhar. On the way near the pig farm shed of the Veterinary Office, he suddenly met the petitioner therein and his stepson Nida-O Ryngkhlem who were coming from the opposite direction and on seeing him, they assaulted him with sharp weapons without any reasons for which he sustained serious injuries and became unconscious till he was found by the villagers on the next day. 10. 10. The petitioner on the other hand, though admitting that he along with Nida-O Ryngkhlem met the victim on the said date i.e. 05.04.2022, however, his version is that the victim who was already drunk asked them if they had brought some liquor to which the duo replied in the positive and the three of them started to drink together. In course of drinking, some argument started and a fight soon ensue resulting in the injuries received by the said victim. 11. Though, the statement recorded by the I/O will not be admissible in evidence, however, from the contents thereof, the Court can come to a finding as to whether there is a prima facie case made out against the accused. At this juncture, the fact that the victim has sustained injuries for which he has to be treated for the same cannot be denied. The fact that such injuries were sustained as a result of an assault directed against the victim can also not be denied. Prima facie, the fingers would point to the petitioner and his accomplice as the persons responsible for the assault on the victim. 12. It is well settled that in a case of consideration of an application for grant of bail or pre-arrest bail, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged has to be taken into account amongst other considerations. 13. Again, from the case diary, it is seen that the petitioner has also got his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which he has given a different version of his involvement in the case, inasmuch as, he has stated that the fight was between the victim and Shri Nida-O Ryngkhlem. 14. Be that as it may, this Court will not venture into the realm of evidence since the investigation has not yet been completed. However, since the petitioner has joined investigation and apparently a case of apprehension has been made out, therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner. 15. 14. Be that as it may, this Court will not venture into the realm of evidence since the investigation has not yet been completed. However, since the petitioner has joined investigation and apparently a case of apprehension has been made out, therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the following conditions:- i) that he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence and witnesses; ii) that he shall cooperate with the I/O as and when required; iii) that he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the State without the prior permission of the I/O or the competent court; and iv) that he shall produce a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only along with two sureties of like amount. 16. The interim bail granted is hereby made absolute. 17. With the above, this petition is hereby disposed of. 18. Registry is directed to send back the case diary.