BA/73/2024 of PATRISHA LARE Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 17 October 2024

1. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR dated 07.11.2023 waslodged by the complainant therein wherein it was alleged that on thatday at about 6:40 pm while waiting for a taxi on her way home from LadUmroi to Lad Umsaw, she boarded one tourist cab driven by the son ofthe petitioner herein. While they were proceeding to the destination, thesaid driver attempted to rape her which resulted in a struggle whereinshe managed to get out of the said vehicle at a place called Palei KitchenRestaurant whereupon the said driver attempted to run over her leftshoulder.

2. The Officer-in-Charge, Umiam Police Station, Ri Bhoi Districtregistered the FIR as Women P.S. Case No. 71(11)23 under Section341/354/323/365/376(2)/511 IPC and investigation was launched. Incourse of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) had examined allthe relevant witnesses and has filed his charge sheet with a finding that awell-established prima facie case is made out against the accused thereinand he was directed to stand trial before the court for the offencesaforementioned.

3. The case has then come up before the learned Sessions Judgebeing registered as Sessions Case No. 5 of 2024 with charges underSection 341/354/323/365/376(2)/511 IPC being framed against theaccused person. The stage of the trial is for recording of the evidence ofthe prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the complainant/survivor hasbeen duly recorded by the learned trial court.

4. Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with this instant application underSection 483 BNSS with a prayer for grant of bail to the accused personShri. Wanshambor Lare.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the allegationsagainst the accused/son of the petitioner are false and fabricated thoughthe fact that he is a tourist taxi driver and on the said date of the allegedincident he had indeed allowed the complainant to board his cab whichshe does so by sitting in the front seat instead of the passenger seat. Incourse of the journey, they got to talk to each other and also exchangedphone numbers. However, due to the constant talking of thecomplainant/survivor, the driver got distracted and met with an accidentwhich resulted in serious injuries sustained by him for which he had tobe admitted at the Civil Hospital, Shillong for a week.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that since investigation isalready completed and the case has proceeded for evidence, the accusedperson had preferred a bail application before the trial court on10.06.2024 which was rejected. The fact that the accused person is ayoung man of 19 years old with no criminal records, if enlarged on bail,he will comply with any conditions that this Court may deemed fit andproper to impose.

7. The learned counsel has further submitted that the accusedperson has been languishing in judicial custody for the last one year andthe trial with fifteen witnesses cited by the prosecution and only one ofthem having been examined, there is every likelihood that the same willbe prolonged. In such a circumstance, the accused person is entitled tobe enlarged on bail. The case of Smti. Lakyntiewrisha Nongrum & Ors.

v. State of Meghalaya & Anr. was cited wherein this Court vide orderdated 16.02.2024 in BA No. 2 of 2024 and related bail applicationsconsidering the period of prolonged incarceration of the accused personin custody and the possibility of the trial not concluding within a shortspan of time had allowed the prayer for bail made therein.

8. Per contra, Mr. K. Khan, learned P.P has submitted that theevidence of the survivor would reveal that in her cross-examination shehad clearly indicated that she is scared of the accused person and wasbadly traumatized by the incident and also that if the accused person isreleased on bail he may take revenge against her and her familymembers. Apart from this, the materials on record, particularly thestatement of the survivor would show that at the time of the incident theaccused person on top of the fact that he tried to rape her, he has alsoattempted to cause serious injuries to her when he tried to run over hershoulders by the said vehicle. Therefore, this is not a fit case for grant ofbail to the accused person, further submits the learned P.P.

9. This Court has gone through the application as well as theannexures thereto including the charge sheet and the deposition of thesurvivor as PW1. It would not be fitting at this stage to come to anyconclusion as to the guilt of the accused person since that would involveappreciation of the whole body of evidence which is still in the processof being recorded.

10. Though the allegations made are serious in nature, consideringthe fact that preliminary stages of the trial are complete, what is now leftis only for the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses inthe first place, being fifteen in numbers, it is apparent that the trial will not be completed within a month or so.

11. The fact that the main witness, that is, the complainant herself,having finally deposed before the court as PW1, it would be proper toassume that there is no possibility of the accused person tampering withthe evidence or person of such an important witness.

12. Again, in the case of Lakyntiewrisha Nongrum (supra) thisCourt has observed at para 14 that the accused person therein has beenin custody for quite some time, investigation has been completed andonly one out of the nine witnesses has been examined, the possibility oftrial being concluded within a short span of time is remote, the sameobservation may also be applied to the case in hand.

13. Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow theprayer of the petitioner and the accused person in question is herebydirected to be released on bail on the following conditions:-

i.That he shall not abscond or intimidate the witnesses; ii.That he shall appear before the court as and whenrequired;required;

iii.That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Statewithout prior permission of the court;without prior permission of the court;

iv.That he shall have no contacts whatsoever with thecomplainant/survivor, physical or otherwise during theperiod of trial;complainant/survivor, physical or otherwise during theperiod of trial;

v.That he shall also refrain from intimidation as far as thefamily members of the complainant/survivor areconcerned; andfamily members of the complainant/survivor areconcerned; and

vi.That he shall furnish a personal bond of ₹ 30,000/-(rupees thirty thousand) only with one surety of likeamount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.(rupees thirty thousand) only with one surety of likeamount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

14. Needless to say, any breach of the abovementioned conditionswould allow the prosecution to move the trial court for cancellation ofbail.would allow the prosecution to move the trial court for cancellation ofbail.

15. Petition disposed of. No costs.

Judge