Back
2013 Supreme(Megh) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
S.R. Sen, J.
Officer-In-Charge, Ampati Police Station And Another - Appellant
Versus
Prohlad Hajong And Others - Respondent
Criminal Rev. Petition No. 37 (SH) of 2013
Decided on : 13-05-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N.D. Chullai, PP
For the Respondent: R. Kar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial propriety and discipline in decision-making, especially in cases involving heinous crimes.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Law - IPC 302, 201, 202, 353, 506, 34 - The court discussed the rejection of pre-arrest bail, the surrender petition, and the granting of bail by the Lower Court. The court highlighted the irregularities in the Lower Court's decision-making process, the failure to consider the High Court's order, and the impact of granting bail in a heinous crime. The judgment also referenced legal principles from previous cases to support the decision to set aside the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was lodged regarding a suspected suicide/murder case. The accused sought pre-arrest bail, which was rejected by the Lower Court. Despite this, the Lower Court granted bail upon surrender. The Investigating Officer filed a revision petition against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lower Court's decision to grant bail was irregular and against judicial propriety and discipline. It also noted the failure to consider the High Court's order and the impact of granting bail in a heinous crime.
Issues: The issues included the irregularities in the Lower Court's decision-making process, the failure to consider the High Court's order, and the impact of granting bail in a heinous crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the impugned order, citing the irregularities in the Lower Court's decision-making process and the impact of granting bail in a heinous crime. It referenced legal principles from previous cases to support the decision.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside and cancelled. The court also issued directions for future bail applications and warned the Addl. District Magistrate to be courteous and well-mannered in Higher Courts.
JUDGMENT :
S.R. Sen, J.
1. The brief fact of the case in nut shell is that, an FIR was lodged on 02.04.13 by Sub-Inspector, P. Lynshiang of Ampati Police Station on the ground that information from reliable source was received that (L) Ms. Aloki Hajong age about 23 years has committed suicide by hanging herself and suspected that the cause of death is not suicide but murder. Accordingly, a case has been registered as Ampati P.S. Case No. 13(4) 2013 u/s 302 /201 /202 /353 /506 /34 IPC. The accused apprehending arrest approached the Court of Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura who turned down pre-arrest bail application vide order dated 5.04.13 and 11.04.13. Thereafter the accused approached this Court for pre-arrest bail vide bail application No. 38/2013 and the said bail application was rejected by this Court on 25.04.13. On 26.04.13, the accused surrendered before the Court of Addl. Magistrate (J) Tura, she allowed the surrendering petition and granted them bail. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.04.13, the petitioner/Investigating Officer, Ampati, Police Station moved this instant revision petition.
2. While admitting the revision petition and after perusal of the orders referred to above, this Court issued notice to the respondents and also directed the Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura to appear in person. In response to the said order, the Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura appeared in person; the respondents accused appeared through their counsel Mr. R. Kar who filed Vakalatnama and the petitioner IO was present along with Mr. N.D. Chullai, the learned PP.
3. On question to the Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura that, how and under what circumstances she passed an impugned order dated 26.04.13 in spite of the fact that pre-arrest bail has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.04.13. She replied to the question that she passed the said order as per her judicial discretion; she also admitted that before passing the order she did not call for the CD nor perused the CD. It has also been observed that her attitude before this Court was hostile and unacceptable for which I expressed my deep anguish and displeasure.
4. On the other hand, Mr. R. Kar, the learned counsel for the accused respondents submits that may be the order has been passed due to some miscommunication; but did not press against bail cancellation petition.
5. On the other hand, Mr. N.D. Chullai, the learned PP submits that the Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura passed a blanket order without any reason and without consulting the CD nor give an opportunity to the 10 to place his views. Moreover, by granting such kind of bail has really hampered the investigation and as per the direction of the Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura, the accused persons till date did not appear before the 10 and prayed that the impugned order dated 26.04.13 may be cancelled.
6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the counsel for both the parties and after careful reading of the order dated 5.04.13 and 11.04.13, I noticed that the Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura noted:
Having heard both sides and on perusal of the FIR, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners as the case is very serious in nature. Rather the petitioners are directed to surrender before the O.C. Ampati P.S." Further, on perusal of the order dated 11.04.13,I noticed that the Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura noted:
Having heard both sides and considering the nature of offence as alleged the report of the IO, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners as the same was already rejected on 5.4.13 by the Court having same jurisdiction.
7. I have perused the order dated 25.04.13 passed in AB (SH) No. 38 of 2013 passed by this Court which is reproduced herein below.
25.04.13
Heard Ms. S.G. Momin, the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the FIR does not indicate the involvement of the petitioner/accused. The police lodged an FIR and as a result, they ar
