Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 241 (MEG)

Meris Tang v. State of Meghalaya

2022-09-08

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. J. Shylla, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that an FIR dated 14.01.2022 was lodged before the Ladrymbai Police Out Post, East Jaintia Hills District by one Shri Md Rafiqul Ali informing the police that he is the owner of one Bolero pickup Truck No. AS-01-JC-3947 which was driven by one Shri. Bidya Dawa Dutta. The informant has also informed that he received a phone call from the Ladrymbai Police Out Post that a suspected burnt body found from a place called Moowakhu Dkhiah West, East Jaintia Hills suspected to be that of his driver since the vehicle was found abandoned at another place. 2. The informant along with the relative of the driver went to Khliehriat CHC and identified the dead body as that of the deceased driver. It is prayed that necessary action be taken as per law. Accordingly, the police registered a criminal case being Khliehriat P.S. Case No. 5 (1) of 2022 under Section 302/34 IPC. 3. The accused Shri. Lodestar Tang, son of the petitioner herein was strongly suspected to be involved in the crime and was arrested on 03.04.2022. It is also mentioned that on an earlier occasion, the said accused had approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, but the same was rejected vide order dated 24.02.2022. 4. On investigation launched by the Investigating Officer and on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge sheet on 02.05.2022 wherein the accused, son of the petitioner and three other persons namely, Shri. Shidorki Dkhar, Shri. Kyrshan Timung and Shri. Pher Dhar were named as accused. It is also submitted that of the four, only the accused, son of the petitioner and Shri. Shidorki Dkhar were arrested while Shri. Kyrshan Timung and Shri. Pher Dhar were never arrested. The matter was committed before the Session Court at Khliehriat and is pending for attendance of all the accused persons. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has moved a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khliehriat, but the same was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2022. Again, a bail application was moved before the Sessions Court at Khliehriat, but this too was rejected vide order dated 19.07.2022. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has moved a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khliehriat, but the same was rejected vide order dated 11.07.2022. Again, a bail application was moved before the Sessions Court at Khliehriat, but this too was rejected vide order dated 19.07.2022. The petitioner has then preferred this instant application before this Court with a prayer for grant of bail to the accused Shri. Lodestar Tang. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the charge sheet would show that there is no direct evidence linking the accused, son of the petitioner to the alleged crime, but only circumstantial evidence is relied upon by the I/O to implicate the said accused in the case. The accused infact has stated before the I/O that on the date of the alleged commission of the crime, he was not in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, but was far away in his village. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has given a lists of twenty-two witnesses to be examined in the case and also considering the fact that two of the accused persons have not yet been apprehended, therefore there is every likelihood that the trial will take a considerable amount of time which will affect the personal liberty and right to life of the accused person and which will also hamper the opportunity to prepare his defence in the case. 8. The accused person even if released on bail would not be able to tamper with the evidence or witnesses as the period of investigation is already over and there is no possibility for tampering with any material witness or even the witnesses. 9. In view of the fact that the accused person is the only earning member of his family with his wife and child depending on him for their livelihood, it is prayed that bail may be granted with any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose. 10. Per contra, Mr. 9. In view of the fact that the accused person is the only earning member of his family with his wife and child depending on him for their livelihood, it is prayed that bail may be granted with any conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose. 10. Per contra, Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG has submitted that the factum of the incident which has led to the death of the victim of the crime has to be considered, inasmuch as, facts will reveal that a gruesome murder has occurred, in which the victim who was a driver of the Bolero pickup Truck while on his way from Silchar to Guwahati passing through East Jaintia Hills District of Meghalaya on 12.01.2022 in the evening on reaching Moowakhu NRL Petrol Pump Ladrymbai, they stopped for taking rest. It was about midnight at that time when suddenly a group of four unknown persons came knocking at the door of the driver and forcefully entered inside the vehicle and snatched the vehicle's key after which they drove the vehicle for some distance and thereafter, they took out one person named, Shri. Sanjoy Chettri who was the handyman of the said vehicle while the deceased driver was tied with shoe laces. The culprits then demanded money from them and threatened to kill them if they do not reveal where they had hidden the money. 11. Shri. Sanjoy Chettri managed to free one of his hands and fled away, however he fell into a deep pit where he was there the whole night. In the morning, he managed to climb out of the pit and came to the highway where he boarded one unknown Sumo vehicle and reached Shillong and from there, he managed to reach home safely. 12. The culprits in the meantime continued to torture the deceased driver by stabbing him with knives on his hand and when they could not get the money from him, they poured diesel over his body and burned him alive. Thereafter, they left the place of occurrence and went back to their village. 13. The learned AAG has submitted that on investigation, these facts were revealed to the I/O who has also examined a number of witnesses including the eye witness, Shri. Sanjoy Chettri who has confirmed and narrated the incident as it happened. 14. Thereafter, they left the place of occurrence and went back to their village. 13. The learned AAG has submitted that on investigation, these facts were revealed to the I/O who has also examined a number of witnesses including the eye witness, Shri. Sanjoy Chettri who has confirmed and narrated the incident as it happened. 14. It is also submitted that the accused person, Shri. Lodestar Tang is a habitual offender and a number of criminal cases were registered against him which are pending trail. The said accused was also examined by the police and on being questioned, he has stated that he was the person who had forcefully open the door of the said Bolero pickup Truck and had snatched the key and taken away the said Truck along with the deceased driver and his handyman as well as his three friends and they had stopped the vehicle at bypass Jalyiah where they had demanded money from the said driver and had tortured him. This accused has also admitted that he was the one who had poured the diesel over the deceased driver and has set him on fire. Thereafter, he had went back to his village. 15. In view of the fact that a very strong prima facie case has been made out against the accused and his accomplices, the learned AAG has submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the accused person. 16. Due consideration has been given to the submission and contention of the rival parties and the petition at hand was also perused by this Court. The admitted facts as it is having not been controverted or denied by the petitioner, inasmuch as the fact that a murder has occurred in which the victim driver of the said Bolero pickup Truck was gruesomely murdered has not been denied. What the petitioner denies is the involvement of her son who has been implicated and arrested in connection with a case registered in this regard. 17. What the petitioner denies is the involvement of her son who has been implicated and arrested in connection with a case registered in this regard. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the fact that the accused, son of the petitioner was arrested and implicated in the case only on circumstantial evidence and also because of the fact that he was an accused in some criminal cases and therefore, it is always the modus operandi of the police to suspect such kind of person whenever any crime occurs within the district. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the statement made by the accused while in police custody cannot be relied upon by this Court as the same is not admissible in law. 19. True, the fact that a gruesome murder has occurred, would shock the conscience of the citizen and when the matter is brought before a Court of law, the gravity and nature of the offence would be stressed upon before the Court to inflict the most severe of punishment to the perpetrator(s) and in this manner, whenever the alleged accused or perpetrator seeks redressal by way of a prayer for grant of bail or pre-arrest bail, the attention of the Court would be drawn to the facts of the incident in an attempt to oppose such prayer for grant of bail. 20. The Court would not be moved with emotion whenever such a scene is played before it, however while considering an application for bail, the time tested and well settled principles has to be taken into account that is, the nature and gravity of the offence, the period of imprisonment for commission of the offence and the antecedent of the accused person being some of the factors which has to be considered by the Court. 21. In the case in hand, the narrative would reveal that a very gruesome murder had indeed taken place, though initially, the investigation would proceed without the identity of the perpetrator(s) known, however in course of investigation, the accused, son of the petitioner and three others have been suspected to be involved in the crime. On being apprehended, the accused, son of the petitioner has not denied his complicity in the matter and as stated, he has admitted to his culpability in his statement before the police. 22. On being apprehended, the accused, son of the petitioner has not denied his complicity in the matter and as stated, he has admitted to his culpability in his statement before the police. 22. In the case of Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2022 while deciding a case of cancellation of bail has observed that '.... statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence....' Applying this to the case in hand, the same would be applicable as prima facie, the involvement of the accused, son of the petitioner in the said murder of the driver has been established. 23. In conclusion, this Court considering all aspect of the matter, has deemed it fit and proper to reject this application at this juncture. The same is dismissed. 24. Bail application disposed of.