Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
Heiratami Biam - Appellants
Vs.
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
A.B. No. 12 of 2020
Decided On : 18-08-2020
POCSO Act- Section 3(a)/4 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 438 - Assailing Order – Anticipatory bail - it is seen that on receipt of verbal information from Complainant who had appeared personally at Police Station at about victim was sent for medical examination - Thereafter as stated above FIR was lodged on and formal investigation was launched - In meantime petitioner had approached Court of Special Judge (POCSO) with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. who has initially granted interim bail to petitioner and had called for case dairy and after finally hearing parties had vide Order rejected application of petitioner - Thereafter I/O then sought to arrest him in connection with said case - Held, If proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering ends of justice but from some ulterior motive object being to injure and humiliate applicant by having him arrested a direction for release of applicant on bail in event of his arrest would generally be made - On other hand if it appears likely considering antecedents of applicant that taking advantage of order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice such an order would not be made - But converse of these propositions is not necessarily true - That is to say it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory cannot be granted unless proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides and equally that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that applicant will abscond - There are several other considerations too numerous to enumerate combined effect of which must weigh with court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail – Petition Disposed
JUDGMENT :
Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
1. Under consideration herein is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which emanated on 28.02.2020 when an FIR was lodged by the Complainant as the mother of the victim before the Officer-In-Charge, Women Police, Jowai Police Station, West Jaintia Hills District alleging that the petitioner herein had sexually assaulted and raped her minor daughter on 27.02.2020 at about 6.30 P.M. at the staff quarter of Finedy Tea Stall, Lad Thomas Jones College, Jowai.
2. From the records, including the contents of the case dairy of Jowai P.S. Case No. 30 (2) 20 under Section 3(a)/4 of POCSO Act, which is the registered number of the FIR so lodged, it is seen that on receipt of the verbal information from the Complainant who had appeared personally at the Police Station at about 10.10 P.M. on 27.02.2020, the victim was sent for medical examination. Thereafter, as stated above, the FIR was lodged on 28.02.2020 and formal investigation was launched.
3. In the meantime, the petitioner had approached the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO), Jowai with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., who has initially granted interim bail to the petitioner and had called for the case dairy and after finally hearing the parties, had, vide Order dated 09.07.2020 rejected the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the I/O then sought to arrest him in connection with the said Jowai P.S. case No. 30 (2) 20.
4. The petitioner, on 30.07.2020 then approached this Court with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as stated above praying for grant of pre-arrest bail on the ground that he apprehends arrest in connection with the said Jowai P.S. case No. 30 (2) 20.
5. Heard Mr. B. Laitmon, learned counsel for the petitioner who at the outset, on query by this Court, has submitted that the petitioner will not pursue the line of argument as far as assailing the Order dated 09.07.2020 of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Jowai is concerned, but would argue on the merits of the prayer as stated in this instant application.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the oral argument advanced, the petitioner has also submitted a written argument, which may be perused by this Court while considering the case of the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the Order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Jowai, which is the grant of interim bail to the petitioner. However, the matter could not be taken up for final hearing for almost five months due to the circular of the High Court on account of the prevailing pandemic situation. In the meantime, the interim bail continues to remain in force till the bail application was finally rejected vide Order dated 09.07.2020.
8. It is the submission of the petitioner that during the five months' period when he was granted interim bail, he had not misused his liberty, but instead had cooperated with the I/O and over five months have elapsed and as such, it is submitted that the investigation would have been completed and therefore, there is no useful purpose to be achieved by detaining the petitioner in custody.
9. Another point of argument of the petitioner is that he is no longer working in the said Tea Stall and his village is approximately about 70 Kms from the residence of the victim and as such, there is no threat of intimidation of the victim by the petitioner. Even Section 506 IPC was also not invoked as far as the petitioner is concerned, it is further submitted.
10. That the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and also that he had appeared before the I/O on 03.07.2020 and 04.08.2020 was also another line of argument of the petitioner to contend that he is entitled to pre-arrest bail, which if granted, he undertakes to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court.
11. In support of his argument, the petitioner has cited the following cases:
Law of bail deals with two complicating interests, i.e. societal interest to cure hazards of crime and to avoid repeating of the same and on the other hand principle of criminal jurisprudence referri....
The severity of allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation are crucial factors in determining the grant of anticipatory bail.
The exclusion of pre-arrest bail under Section 438(4) Cr.P.C. is not absolute; it does not apply when no prima facie case is made against the accused.
applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant was not only declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. but proclamation of attachment of property was also iss....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases, and requires strict compliance with court-imposed conditions.
The seriousness of the alleged offences and the need for thorough investigation are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
