BA/52/2024 of HABIZUR ROHMAN Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 18 November 2024

1. State of Meghalaya

represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor2. Shri. Ohet M Marak son of (L) Jangson G. Momin,resident of Rongdu Rongtit,P.S. Rongjeng, East Garo Hills District,Meghalaya …..….Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. L.N. Arengh, learned counsel for the petitioner whohas submitted that this bail application is the second of its kind filed before this Court with similar prayer for grant of bail on behalf of theaccused person, Shri. Rofiqul Islam who is in custody in connectionwith Special POCSO Case No. 9 of 2023 pending before the court ofthe learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Garo Hills, Williamnagar.

2. The learned counsel has submitted that this is a case where4(four) accused persons are said to be involved on the allegation thatthe survivor was kidnapped, raped and sold and finally was made to getmarried by the accused person and his associates. However, the minorsurvivor managed to flee from the abductors and was brought home.Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by the father of the survivor leading tothe registration of Rongjeng P.S. Case No. 31(10) 2015 under Section363/366/366A/370/370A/34 IPC read with Section 5(g)(l)/6 POCSOAct. After investigation was over, the case has been charge sheetedwith the accused person in question being made to stand trial alongwith other accused persons.

3. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the stage of the case is for recording of evidence, however, noprosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The only groundraised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of the 4(four)accused persons being implicated in the case, two of them have sincebeen enlarged on bail and accordingly on ground of parity the prayer ismade before this Court for grant of bail.

4. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG, appearing for the Staterespondent has resisted the prayer on the ground that the petitioner hadearlier approached this Court with a similar application being BA No. 6of 2024 and this Court on consideration of the facts and circumstancestherein had vide order dated 12.06.2024 rejected the petition. Since there is no change of circumstances, therefore, the petitioner has noground to come before this Court with a similar or identicalapplication, as such, this application being devoid of merits, the sameis prayed to be dismissed.

5. This Court on consideration of the submission made and also onperusal of the order dated 12.06.2024 (supra) as pointed out by thelearned AAG, has noted the observation made at para 9 of the same andis being reproduce herein as:- “9. This Court on consideration of the submission made and onperusal of the petition in hand including the statement of thesurvivor as well as the brief narration of the facts andcircumstances filed by the I/O, without repetition of the facts asindicated therein would agree that the case is one which is veryserious in nature. In fact, if proved to be true, the manner inwhich the minor was subjected to sexual assault and degradationof her personality, the Court or even the society at large wouldnot condone such action by the accused persons involvedincluding the accused person in question.”

6. After considering the circumstances of the case and the fact thatthe statement of the survivor is very convincing as to what hadhappened to her, the accused person in question being named as one ofthe accused persons being involved in the whole episode, therefore atthis point of time this Court is not convinced that there are freshcircumstances which would allow a relook into the said order dated12.06.2024.

7. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed as devoid ofmerits.

8. Petition disposed of. No costs.

Judge