MC(W.P.Crl)/1/2024 of NO. 113990825 CT/(GD) SHRI. BHAND KANAAHIYA RAMHARI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. on 21 October 2024

1. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of HomeAffairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Director General, Border Security Force, (F.H.Q), 10- Central OfficeComplex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -03.

3. The Additional Director General (EC) HQ SPL DG(EC) BSF, Kolkata.

4. The Commandant, 55[th] Batallion, Border Security Force, Bobasipara, Tura West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.

5. The Deputy Inspector General, BSF, FTR, HQ, BSF, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.

….Respondents.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

: Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with Ms. K. Gurung, Adv.

ORAL:-

Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner also Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. K. Gurung,learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

By this application, the petitioner has made a prayer for his releaseon bail for a temporary period to enable him to visit his ailing father atKusum Nagar, Bhoom District Osmanabad, Maharashtra – 413504. Thelearned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to themedical certificate dated 14-10-2024, wherein it has been specificallymentioned that the petitioner’s father is suffering from severe parkinsonism(Severe Hypolkineria, dementia) and the near and dear one of the ailingfather of the petitioner should be around him at this stage as it may beterminal event. The learned Counsel, without referring to the merits of thecase, submits that due to the urgent situation the petitioner may be allowedto visit his ailing father and in support of his case, has placed reliance onthe decision of the Apex Court reported in (2021) 5 SCC 311, Kerala Unionof Working Journalists Vs. Union of India and Others to contend that, in thepresent situation, it is permissible for this High Court to order release of thepetitioner for a short duration of time on bail. The learned Counsel hasfurther placed reliance on a decision passed by this High Court in MC(W.P.Crl) No. 1 of 2022 in MC (W.P.Crl) No. 2 of 2022, No. G/5007784K

Rifleman (GD) Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India & 4 Ors. and submitted thatas per the said decision, the Registrar General of this Court is competent toaccept the bail bond for any such release on bail.

Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI, on the other hand, while opposing theprayer of the petitioner has submitted that there is an alternative remedyavailable to the petitioner for seeking relief in the present situation. Thelearned DSGI referred to Sections 78, 128 and 130 of the B.S.F. Act andcontended that the petitioner should approach the Director General, B.S.F.requesting for his temporary release. It is the submission of the learnedDSGI that since there is an alternative remedy available, the petitionercould not have approached this Court by filing this instant application. Hesubmits that the application be rejected and the petitioner be directed toapproach the Director General, B.S.F. for the relief which has been prayedfor in this application.

Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and onperusal of the materials on record, it appears from the medical report dated14-10-2024 and the averments made in the application that the father of thepetitioner is seriously ill and it is, indeed, an emergent situation. Though, asubmission has been made on behalf of the respondents that there is analternative remedy available to the petitioner, it appears that approachingthe Director General, B.S.F, at this stage, by filing an application andseeking disposal of the same would take considerable period of time. Onquery being made by this Court, the learned DSGI submitted that it maytake 7-10 days for the Director General to dispose of the application in casethe petitioner prefers an application for his temporary release.

In view of the above situation, without going into the merits of thecontention raised on behalf of the parties, it is deemed appropriate at thisstage to allow the release of the petitioner, who is presently lodged at Tura

Jail consequent to his conviction and sentenced by the General BorderSecurity Court, temporarily for a period of 10 (ten) days on bail on thefollowing conditions: -

i)The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand rupees) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of theRegistrar General of this High Court.

ii)The petitioner shall not abscond or leave the jurisdiction of thecountry.

iii)The petitioner shall give prior information of his travel planeither to the Deputy Inspector General, B.S.F,Tura or the Inspector General,Frontier Headquarter, B.S.F, Shillong.

iv)The petitioner, on his return, shall report to the authority towhom he submitted his travel plan.

v)The petitioner shall ensure his return to Tura Jail within 10(ten) days failing which this order shall stand automatically cancelled. Theconnected Criminal Writ Petition would be taken up for hearing only afterthe petitioner’s return to the Tura Jail.

The period of 10 (ten) days shall be computed from the day on whichthe petitioner is released on bail from the Tura Jail.

The application stands allowed.

Judge

Meghalaya21.10.2024“Biswarup PS”