AB/12/2024 of BANMIKI SUNA @ LIK SUNA Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA on 12 September 2024

1. Heard Mr. S.M. Suna, learned counsel for the petitioner who hassubmitted that this petition for grant of anticipatory bail is filed beforethis Court on a similar application filed before the Court of the learnedSessions Judge, Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District, being rejected videorder date 20.06.2024.

2. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner hadearlier approached the learned Sessions Judge on 16.05.2024 with asimilar application but the same was rejected vide order dated28.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a related applicationbefore this Court which was sought to be withdrawn with liberty toapproach the Sessions Court, the same was accordingly allowed.However, on an application made before the Sessions Court, suchapplication was rejected. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel went on to submit that the brief facts of thecase is that on 27.04.2024 at about 4:00 am a scuffle took placebetween the petitioner and one Shri. Rajesh Sari at Rajasthan Dhabalocated at Khliehtyrshi Village on the Jowai Bypass. As a consequencethereof, an FIR was lodged by the sister of the alleged victim on01.05.2024 before the Officer-in-Charge, Ummulong Beat House, thesame being registered as Jowai P.S. Case No. 25(05) of 2024 underSection 307 IPC.

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that in course of hisapplication for grant of anticipatory bail before the court of theSessions Judge, he was allowed to go on interim bail and in theintervening period he had also appeared before the Investigating Officer on four occasions, that is, on 17.05.2024, 18.05.2024,07.06.2024 and 17.06.2024, his statement being accordingly recordedby the I/O on 18.05.2024.

5. The dismissal of his anticipatory bail application by the learnedSessions Judge was only on the ground that the I/O had sought forcustodial interrogation purportedly to retrieve the stone allegedly usedfor the assault upon the alleged victim and also on the observationsmade after viewing the video clipping depicting the incident and themedical report of the alleged victim. The learned counsel has submittedthat the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has no criminalantecedent and comes from a good family. If enlarged on bail, there isno likelihood that he will abscond or refuse to cooperate with theinvestigation. Therefore, if the prayer made in this petition is allowed,the petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions to be imposed bythis Court.

6. Per contra, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG while opposing theprayer made by the petitioner has submitted that the case is veryserious in nature to the extent that the victim at the relevant point oftime had to be admitted in the ICU ward of the Nazareth Hospital,Shillong with a case of severe head injury.

7. The learned AAG has also submitted that the progress ofinvestigation as is reflected in the case diary duly produced before theCourt today has established the fact that the petitioner is the perpetratorof the assault upon the victim (Shri. Rajesh Sari) which is evident fromthe footage retrieved from the CCTV coverage on the date and time of

the incident. The copy of the video clipping has also been producedbefore this Court today through a USB device.

8. The learned AAG has led this Court to the statement of thewitnesses recorded by the I/O which is reflected in the CD, moreimportantly the statement of that of the victim who has clearlyidentified the perpetrator of the assault upon him being the petitionerherein.

9. Since the learned Sessions Judge has also opined that on thebasis of the said CCTV footage and the medical report which hasconfirmed the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victim, thepetitioner being the cause of such assault, at this point of time it maynot be proper for this Court to allow this petition. The same may bedismissed as devoid of merits, submits the learned AAG.

10. This Court has carefully considered the submission of the partiesand has also perused the CD and has viewed the contents of the USBwherein it is seen the visual recording of what actually transpired onthe date of the alleged incident at the PO, that is, on 27.04.2024.

11. From the said visual recording though the scene of two youngpersons being involved in a scuffle is seen, there is no indication thatany kind of weapon or instrument was used during such scuffle. Thepetitioner having admitted to being involved in the said scuffle, thestatement or visual evidence will have to be tested in course of trial.

12. The fact that the victim has also been hospitalised with serioushead injury is evident from the medical report and from the statementof the witnesses who were present at the time of said incident. It is to be noted however that none of the eye-witnesses have stated that theysaw the petitioner hitting the victim with a stone. What is furtherobserved is that another version of the incident was recounted to saythat during the scuffle between the petitioner and the victim, the victimattempted to cross the road to go to the other side but at that point oftime he was hit by an oncoming Bolero Pick-up Truck resulting in theinjuries caused to him. It is also the statement of the witnesses that itwas the driver of the said truck who had taken the victim to theNazareth Hospital for treatment. Again, any evidence in this regard willhave to be tested during trial.

13. In view of the different versions present, as to how the victimwas actually injured, as far as the prayer of the petitioner is concerned,this Court at this point of time is inclined to allow the same consideringthe fact that the circumstances surrounding the whole incident wouldgive the impression that the petitioner had assaulted the victim underthe influence of liquor and prima facie there seems to be no pre-meditated intention to assume that it is a case of an attempt to murder.

14. In any case, since a case has been registered with the petitioneras the accused person, therefore it cannot be said that there is noapprehension of arrest on the part of the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the prayer made in this petition is allowed.

16. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, in the event ofhis arrest, if he is not wanted in any other case on the followingconditions:-

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 50,000/- (rupees₹fifty thousand) only with one solvent surety of like amount tothe satisfaction of the I/O or the court concerned.fifty thousand) only with one solvent surety of like amount tothe satisfaction of the I/O or the court concerned.

17. The interim bail granted is hereby made absolute.

18. The case diary as well as the USB device to be returned back.

19. Petition disposed of. No costs.

Judge