IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, J.
Elbert Shemphang Kharlukhi — Appellant
Versus
State Of Meghalaya — Respondent
B.A. No. 2 of 2019
Decided on : 16-05-2019
Bail - Special POCSO Case - The court directed the Trial Court to consider a fresh bail application based on change in circumstances and ensure expeditious trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the accused facing trial in a Special POCSO case. The petitioner had been in custody for 29 months and argued for bail based on the right to speedy trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Trial Court to consider a fresh bail application and ensure expeditious trial, emphasizing the need to dispel the impression that the Trial Court will not entertain the bail application.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to bail based on the right to speedy trial and change in circumstances after the rejection of the previous bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a fresh bail application can be filed based on change in circumstances, and the Trial Court cannot refuse to entertain the same. It directed the Trial Court to consider the application for bail and ensure expeditious trial.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application, directing the Trial Court to consider a fresh bail application and ensure expeditious trial.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in favour of the accused facing trial in connection with Special POCSO case No. 20/2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that number of application were filed for grant of bail unsuccessfully before the Trial Court as well as before this Court.
3. Earlier case was pending before the Special Judge POCSO, Shillong but was transferred to Special Judge POCSO, Jowai vide order of this Court dated 31-07-2018 passed in Transfer Petition Criminal case No. 2/2018. The bail application No. 9/2018 as was filed for grant of bail was sent to the Trial Court.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 29 months. According to 2 him, 42 prosecution witnesses are to be examined, till date only 2 witnesses have been examined. Right to speedy trial is being impeded, as a result whereof petitioner is entitled to concession of bail. In short, according to learned counsel there is change in circumstances after the last bail application was rejected, therefore, plea for grant of bail should have been considered by the learned Trial Court but learned Trial Court perhaps in view of the rejection of the bail application by this Court on 07-04-2017 is not inclined to consider the bail application.
5. On the change of circumstances, fresh bail application can lie and Trial Court cannot refuse to entertain the same. It is for the Trial Court to see as to whether there are change in circumstances or whether otherwise there is case for grant of bail. To dispel the impression that learned Trial Court will not entertain the bail application, it is made clear that learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the application for grant of bail as shall be filed by the petitioner afresh. After objections and hearing both prosecution as well as petitioner, shall pass appropriate orders as shall be warranted, within a period of three weeks from the date the application is filed.
6. While disposing of this application suffice it to say that learned Trial Court shall ensure expeditious trial and shall also consider the application for the bail as shall be filed by the petitioner as directed above. Copy of the order to be sent to Trial Court for information.
7. Disposed of as above.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.