Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 42 (MEG)

Balkarin Ch. Marak v. State of Meghalaya

2022-03-10

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with this application u/s 438 CrPC with a prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Mendipathar PS Case No. 01(01)2022 u/s 395 IPC. 2. An FIR dated 06.01.2022 was lodged before the Officer-In-charge Mendipathar Police Station by Shri Prakash Ch. Momin, the proprietor of M/s Super Energy Point, Mendipathar alleging that on 05.01.2022 at around 4:00pm, some unknown people came to the petrol pump premises in three cars and some bikes and two of them introduced their names as Mr. Balkarin Marak, the petitioner herein and Mr. Rayan Ch. Marak along with Mr. Trelen Deka. This group of people threatened the dispensing selling man to allow them to check the delivery and, in the process, they snatched the keys of the petrol pump and demanded a sum of rupees ten lakhs from the staff and on being refused, they forcibly took full tank fuel in their cars and bikes and then forcefully closed the outlet. 3. On receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered as Mendipathar PS Case No. 01(01)2022 u/s 395 IPC and investigation was launched. In course of investigation, three persons were apprehended and their statements were accordingly recorded u/s 161 CrPC. 4. Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, wherein the name of the petitioner herein figured, are totally false and not the correct picture of what had transpired. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner and his colleague members of the Garoland State Movement Committee, (GSMC) had received numerous complaints from public and some individuals that adulterated petrol was being sold from the said petrol pump named and styled as M/s Super Energy Point, petrol pump. The petitioner on receipt of such complaint had verbally requested the Superintendent of Police, North Garo Hills to conduct the enquiry but the said Superintendent of Police did not take up the matter and instead had given verbal permission to the petitioner and the members of GSMC to conduct the spot enquiry after which it was found that the owner of the said petrol pump is distributing adulterated petrol and had tampered the dispensing machine. In this regard, the counter FIR filed by the petitioner has not been registered it is further submitted. 5. Mr. In this regard, the counter FIR filed by the petitioner has not been registered it is further submitted. 5. Mr. Sangma has also submitted that the petitioner apprehending arrest had preferred an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, North Garo Hills and vide order dated 24.01.2022 was granted interim relief from arrest and was directed to appear before the I/O for which due compliance was made and his statement duly recorded. However, consequently, vide order dated 24.01.2022 the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the application for pre-arrest bail and had vacated the interim order. Hence, this instant application. 6. Again, it is the submission of Mr. Sangma that three co-accused have since been granted pre-arrest bail but his application was rejected only on the ground that his name was reflected in the FIR and also that he was not cooperating with the I/O which is not true as the petitioner has appeared before the I/O and got his statement recorded accordingly. 7. The petitioner strongly and vehemently denies his involvement in the said incident at the said petrol pump and has submitted that the said FIR was lodged only to tarnish his image and to defame his reputation, since he is the co-chairman of the Garoland State Movement Committee (GSMC) working for the upliftment of the society. 8. Further submitting that there is great apprehension of his imminent arrest in connection with the said Mendipathar PS case, the petitioner who has no criminal antecedent and who is a permanent resident of Chokpot, South Garo Hills District, if granted pre-arrest bail will fully cooperate with the investigation and will bind himself with any condition imposed by this Court. 9. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that the case diary as called for has been duly produced before this Court and prayer is made for perusal of the same wherein, it will be found that the petitioner herein is very much involved in the case inasmuch as, he was the kingpin who was responsible for the act of dacoity at the place of incident. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Gurung has further submitted that it is a fact that the learned Sessions Judge, North Garo Hills had initially allowed the petitioner go on interim bail, however, the I/O has categorically reported that the petitioner had refused to cooperate with the investigation, for example the information regarding the vehicle used by him at the place of occurrence was withheld from the I/O on the ground of which the prayer for pre-arrest bail was objected before the learned Sessions Judge who has accordingly rejected the related application. Another factor working against the petitioner is that he is also involved in another criminal case being Tura Women PS Case No. 52(08)2019 u/s 448/324/354/506/509/34 IPC. Since investigation is going on, therefore if enlarged on bail the petitioner may abscond or tamper with the evidence and witnesses given his stature and status in society and as such, the prayer made in this petition may not be granted at this stage. 11. The submission of the learned counsels for the rival parties have been duly noted and the facts as stated need not be reiterated, however, what is required to be considered here is whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted pre-arrest bail under the circumstances. 12. This Court is guided by a number of authorities on this point particularly, by judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, directions and guidelines have been issued to guide the competent court as to how and when applications for grant of pre-arrest bail may be allowed or rejected. No doubt, the main consideration should be the facts and circumstances of a particular case looking at the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed if convicted, the balance of personal liberty vis-à-vis societal security and other relevant considerations which has to be taken into account in this regard. 13. In the case of 'Sidharam Satlinggappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra' (2011)1 SCC 694 at paragraph 112 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down factors and parameters that may be considered while dealing with the case of pre-arrest bail, the same is being reproduced as under: '112. 13. In the case of 'Sidharam Satlinggappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra' (2011)1 SCC 694 at paragraph 112 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down factors and parameters that may be considered while dealing with the case of pre-arrest bail, the same is being reproduced as under: '112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused 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; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail'. 14. 14. On consideration of the above, this Court is of the opinion that at this juncture, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed. This petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby rejected. 15. Registry is directed to return the case diary. 16. Matter disposed of. No cost.