Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 155 (MEG)

Troilen Deka @ Trelen Deka v. State of Meghalaya

2022-06-10

WANLURA DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that an FIR dated 06.01.2022 was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Mendipathar PS, Mendipathar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. In the said FIR, the informant therein Shri. Prakash Ch. Momin is said to be the proprietor of a petrol pump named and styled as M/s Super Energy Point Mendipathar. The allegation is that on 05.01.2021 at about 4 P.M. some unknown people came to the said petrol pump in three numbers of cars and some bikes and after introducing themselves as members of a local organization, they suddenly threatened the Dispensing Selling Man to allow them to check the delivery. On being told by the pump attendants that the same has already been checked and found to be okay, the said group threatened the staff of the outlet and also snatch the keys of the petrol pump while demanding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only from the staff. The group also forcefully filled up full-tank fuel in their cars and bikes and forcefully closed the outlet. 2. The FIR was duly registered with Mendipathar PS Case No. 1 of 2022 u/s 395 IPC and investigation was launched. 3. The learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not at all connected with the allegation contained in the FIR but, as his name has appeared thereon and apprehending arrest has, in the first instance preferred an application for grant of pre-arrest bail from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, North Garo Hills vide A.B. No. 11/2022. The learned Sessions Judge has accordingly, granted him interim pre-arrest bail vide order dated 25.02.2022. However, only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to appear before the I/O, which according to the petitioner the same was due to miscommunication, the interim bail granted was set aside and the bail application was consequently rejected. 4. The learned Sr. counsel has again submitted that it is not the intention of the petitioner not to cooperate with the investigating agency but for the fact that on a particular day when a call came to his mobile phone, since it was an unknown number, he did not respond to the same and only later he came to know that it was the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. However, it is reiterated that the petitioner is fully committed to cooperate with the investigating officer and this Court may direct his appearance before the said I/O. 5. Per contra, the learned Addl. P.P, Mr. H. Kharmih, has submitted that the case diary as called for by this Court is hereby produced for perusal thereof. 6. It is also the submission of the learned Addl. P.P that the allegation made in the FIR are serious in nature and the involvement of the petitioner herein has been clearly made out from the statement of the witnesses duly recorded in the course of investigation. The fact that the petitioner has deliberately chosen not to appear before the I/O on the strength of the order of the learned Sessions Judge is also indicative of the fact that the petitioner has no respect for the procedure of law. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the I/O and has refused to give correct information when sought for and has also failed to produce the vehicle allegedly used by him on the day of the occurrence. 8. It is, therefore, prayed that this application is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. On consideration of the submission made by the respective counsels for the parties, it may be necessary to look at the provision of section 438 Cr.P.C which reads as follows:- '438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. It is, therefore, prayed that this application is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. On consideration of the submission made by the respective counsels for the parties, it may be necessary to look at the provision of section 438 Cr.P.C which reads as follows:- '438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. - [(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely:- (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this subsection or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court. (1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.] (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer In charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1). [(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]' 10. The above provision stipulates that a person who has reasons to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence may apply for grant of pre-arrest bail before the Court of Session or before the High Court. The above provision stipulates that a person who has reasons to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence may apply for grant of pre-arrest bail before the Court of Session or before the High Court. The court, obviously, on consideration of the same would order for his release on bail in the event of his arrest provided the factors indicated in the provision are present. It is well settled that among the common factors to be considered is the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the applicant to abscond among others. 11. However, the fact that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion appeared before the I/O and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C was also recorded, considering the commitment given at the bar through his counsel, that he will cooperate with the investigation, at this stage this Court taking due note of the fact that there is an apprehension of an arrest, grant of pre-arrest bail can be considered under the circumstances. 12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, in the event of his arrest the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on the following conditions that: i. He shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence and witnesses; ii. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission from the I/O; iii. He shall personally bind himself with a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only along with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, North Garo Hills District. 13. With the above, this petition is hereby disposed of. 14. Registry is directed to sent back the case diary.