BA/34/2024 of RAM SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 12 September 2024

1. The State of MeghalayaThrough the Superintendent of PoliceRi-Bhoi District, Meghalaya2. The Officer In-ChargeUmiam Police StationRi-Bhoi District, Meghalaya ..…..….Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

ORDER (ORAL)

1. An FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Umiam PoliceStation by Havildar Ajay Singh Jastoria who has complained that about2155 hrs. on 26.04.2024 when he was performing his duties asOfficiating Company Havildar Major of ‘D’ Company and whiledisseminating unit routine orders to all the personnel of ‘D’ Company aquarrel broke out between the complainant and Lance Naik Shiv Singh.Soon after sepoy Ajay Singh joined in the quarrel and between 0015hrs. and 0045 hrs. on 27.04.2024 a scuffle broke out amongst them.Sepoy Ajay Singh slapped him and he fell to the ground. ThereafterAjay Singh hit him with some sharp-edged device on his left shouldertwice. Lance Naik Shiv Singh also kicked him while he was on theground rendering him unconscious. When he regained consciousness,he realised that he was in the unit medical inspection room beingrendered first aid and soon after he was taken to 420 field hospital fortreatment but was referred to Military Hospital, Shillong for furthertreatment.

2. On receipt of the said FIR, a case being Umiam P.S. Case No.30(05) of 2024 under Section 326/506/34 IPC was registered and thesaid Ajay Singh as well as Shiv Singh were arrested in connectionthereto.

3. The accused Ajay Singh being in custody in connection with theabovementioned Umiam P.S. case, an application for grant of bail hasbeen preferred by the father of the said accused person which is underconsideration herein.

4. Heard Mr. B.K. Biswa, learned counsel for the petitioner whohas submitted that though the scuffle between the complainant and thepetitioner took place on the said date however, the accused person inquestion having been in custody for more than 90 days, the chargesheet not having been filed at the relevant point of time, an applicationfor grant of bail was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrateat Nongpoh on 12.08.2024. However, on learning that the learned CJMis on sanctioned leave the petitioner is therefore before this Court withthis instant application.

5. The learned counsel has further submitted that there was no illintention on the part of the accused person in question, the incidenthappened accidentally and as such, it is prayed that the prayer for grantof bail may be allowed with any conditions to be imposed by this Courtto which the accused person undertakes to abide by.

6. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner ison parity inasmuch as the co-accused, that is Shiv Singh having beenreleased on bail, therefore this benefit may also be extended to theaccused person in question.

7. Mr. J. Thabah, learned GA while opposing the prayer for grant ofbail has submitted that a perusal of the case diary, which has beenproduced before this Court today would show that the conduct of theaccused person in question exhibits an intent to cause harm to thecomplainant which is manifested in the fact that in the midst of thequarrelling he had taken advantage of the darkness and has tried toslash the complainant’s neck with a machete but fortunately, due to thetimely response of the complainant he could only hit the shoulder. This being the case, the allegation being serious in nature, at this point oftime it may not be proper for the accused person to be enlarged on bail,further submits the learned GA.

8. This Court has considered the submission made and also perusedthe case diary. It is noted that in the statement of the accused personAjay Singh he has admitted that the scuffle took place on the said dateof the incident but his version is that it was the complainant who hadstarted the argument which resulted in the scuffle and he was also thefirst one who had physically assaulted Shiv Singh.

9. What is also further noticed is that the investigation into thematter has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed on15.07.2024 under the relevant provision of law with the I/O coming toa finding that there exists a strong prima facie case against the accusedperson in question and the co-accused and they are to be put up for trialbefore the competent court.

10. In view of the fact that the investigation is completed, it may notbe necessary to further interrogate the accused person in question andthat in the trial he is to be given an opportunity to defend himself. Atthis stage under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is ofthe opinion that the accused person may be allowed to go on bail withconditions to be imposed.

11. It is well settled that in a criminal proceeding if the attendance ofthe accused person could be ensured then it may not be proper to keepa person in custody unnecessarily. This proposition has beenhighlighted in a number of judgments rendered by the Hon’bleSupreme Court as well as various High Courts. One such authority in this regard is the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 at para 21 and 22 whereinthe Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“21. In bail application, generally, it has been laid down from theearliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance ofthe accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. Theobject of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation ofliberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required toensure that an accused person will stand his trial when calledupon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principlethat punishment begins after conviction, and that every man isdeemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention incustody pending completion of trial could be a cause of greathardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial tosecure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' isthe operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary tothe concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution thatany person should be punished in respect of any matter, uponwhich, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances,he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that hewill tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the mostextraordinary circumstances.”

12. Accordingly, the prayer made in this petition is hereby allowed.

13. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail, if he is notwanted in any other case on the following conditions:-wanted in any other case on the following conditions:-

i.That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence andwitnesses;witnesses;

ii.That he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as andwhen required;when required;

iii.That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without priorpermission of the I/O or the court concerned; andpermission of the I/O or the court concerned; and

iv.That he shall furnish a personal bond of 30,000/- (rupees₹thirty thousand) only with one solvent surety of like amountto the satisfaction of the I/O or the court concerned.thirty thousand) only with one solvent surety of like amountto the satisfaction of the I/O or the court concerned.

14. Petition disposed of. No costs.

Judge