Back
2020 Supreme(Megh) 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
Lorina Jyrwa Nongsiej and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Robert Feller Kharbuki and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. Rev P. Nos. 9 and 10 of 2020
Decided On : 15-12-2020
For the Appellant : P. Chettri, Adv. and Party-in-Person
For the Respondents: J.M. Thangkhiew, Adv., S. Sengupta, Addl. Sr. PP and S.G. Momin, Addl. Sr. PP
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – 438, 439(2) , 482, 164 and 301 – Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 500/506/509 - Anticipatory Bail - Petitioner in Crl. Rev has come before Court with an application. - Directed against order passed by learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, whereby Respondent No. 1 was enlarged on anticipatory bail by Court in connection with P.S. Case - Court has not gone into merits of said impugned order and as such, authorities cited in regard has not been discussed – Held, Let copy of order be issued upon learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, for due compliance with a direction to re-hear said applications on for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of Respondent No. 1 by ensuring that Public Prosecutor is present and also to allow participation of Petitioners as per procedure of law, particularly provision analogous to - Concerned parties are accordingly directed to appear before said Court on said date – Applications Disposed
JUDGMENT :
Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
1. The Petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. No. 9 of 2020 has come before this Court with an application under Section 439(2) r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. directed against the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong, whereby the Respondent No. 1 was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Court in connection with Rynjah P.S. Case No. 29(3) 2020 u/s. 500/506/509 IPC.
2. Similarly, the Petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. No. 10 of 2020 appearing in person has come before this Court with an application under Section 439(2) r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. directed against the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong, whereby the Respondent No. 1 was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Court in connection with Rynjah P.S. Case No 28(3) 2020 u/s. 500/506/509 IPC.
3. It is noticed that the subject matter of both the applications are similar and almost identical and the impugned order also being almost identical, for the sake of brevity and experience, this Court proposes to dispose of these applications vide this common judgment.
4. Ms. P. Chettri learned counsel for the Petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. No. 9 of 2020 has submitted that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 were acquainted official since the Respondent No. 1 is the Myntri in the Office of the Syiem of Mylliem. However, in the year 2019, particularly in the month of December 2019, he started harassing the Petitioner and demanded money from her and even defamed her in the presence of many witnesses, stating that she is a woman of bad character leading to the filing of the FIR, which was registered as Rynjah P.S. Case No 29(3) 2020 u/s. 500/506/509 IPC.
5. It is also the case of the Petitioner in Crl. Rev. P. No. 10 of 2020 that an FIR dated 05.03.2020 was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge Rynjah Police Station with an allegation that the Respondent No. 1 herein has been harassing and demanding money as well as has defamed the character of the Petitioner by alleging that she is a characterless person and was having an affair with many men, following which Rynjah P.S. Case No. 28(3) of 2020 under Section 500/506/509 IPC was registered.
6. The Respondent No. 1 (Shri. Robert Feller Kharbuki) who is the named accused in both the FIRs mentioned above, then moved separate applications for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of the Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong, which applications though heard separately, relevant orders were passed on the same date, whereby the learned Court granted interim bail to him on 26.08.2020 and made the same absolute on 10.09.2020.
7. Ms. Chettri has also submitted that the learned Court of the Additional Judge while making the interim bail absolute did not follow the due process of law, inasmuch as, the order was passed in the absence of the Public Prosecutor as well as the Complainant. Infact, on three occasions, the learned Public Prosecutor was absent, which could have prompted the Court to hear the Complainant/Petitioner herein. The case of Kunhiraman, K.C. v. State of Kerala: (2005) 2 KLT 685, paragraph 10 & 11 was relied upon in this respect.
8. It is further submitted that the Court below has failed to considered the settled position of law in this regard as was held in the case of State of UP through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi: (2005) 8 SCC 21 paragraph 18 which has listed out matters to be considered in an application for bail. One of the conditions to be considered was the character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused which the learned Court has failed to prima facie see whether the accused/Respondent No. 1 has committed the offence or not, he being a Myntri and an influential member of the community and as such, his action of defaming the Petitioner in public was not taken into account by the learned Court while making the bail absolute.
9. Another ground cited by the learned Court below while makin
