BA/63/2024 of IBRAHIM KHAN @ EBRAHIM KHAN Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 26 September 2024

1. Heard Mr. J. Shylla, learned counsel for the petitioner, who hassubmitted that an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, DawkiPolice Station on 16.06.2024, the informant who is a police officeralleging that when he was deputed for night Naka checking duty, hereceived reliable information that some Bangladeshi Nationals are likelyto enter Indian Territory through the Unfence International Border. In theprocess, two public service vehicles were intercepted, on being search, anumber of suspected foreign nationals, including four ladies and fiveminor children were found to be occupants of the said vehicles.Accordingly, a case was registered as Dawki P.S. No. 11 (6) 2024 underSection 14A/14C of the Foreigners Act and investigation was launched.

2. It is also further submitted that the progress of investigationhad taken quite some time and the charge sheet has not yet been filedwithin the stipulated period of time, and as such, the petitioner had movedfor grant of default bail on 16.08.2024, which prayer was allowed by thelearned Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District vide order dated 19.08.2024.

3. The learned counsel has also submitted that while granting bailto the petitioner herein, certain conditions were imposed, inter alia, forexecution of personal bond of 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with₹two sureties of like amount. However, the petitioner being a poor person,has found it difficult to provide the said sureties as directed as a result ofwhich inspite of being granted bail, he is still languishing in custody tilldate.

4. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel has submittedthat this instant petition is preferred before this Court with a prayer formodification of the said bail condition to the extent that the petitioner maybe directed to be released on bail upon execution of a personal bondwithout surety or alternatively to deposit cash bond as deemed fit andproper by this Court.

5. The learned counsel in support of his contention has submittedthat the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Ram and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47 has laid down theprinciple that bail conditions should not be onerous resulting in a virtualdenial of bail, when circumstances and relevant situation surrounding the petitioner ought to have been considered, vis-à-vis, his capacity to complywith such condition. Para 23, 24 and 25 of the said judgment was referredto by the learned counsel in this regard.

6. To strengthen his plea for an expeditious consideration of hisprayer in this petition, the learned counsel has also submitted that duringthe pendency of this petition before this Court, while the petitioner wasunder custody, his mother had sadly passed away on 24.09.2024 whichdemands his presence with the family members under such circumstances.It is therefore prayed that this petition may be allowed and the prayermade for modification of the said bail application be granted to allow thepetitioner to be released on bail.

7. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of theState respondent has not strongly opposed the prayer made by thepetitioner herein, but has only insisted that some time may be allowed forthe Investigating Officer to file a status report as far as the progress ofinvestigation is concerned, involving the petitioner herein.

8. This Court, has considered the case of the petitioner, andwould accept the statement made on affidavit that he has no resources toenable him to secure sufficient sureties as directed by the learned court which has passed the initial bail order. Apart from the authority cited bythe learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. the case of Moti Ram (supra), thelearned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a recent order passedby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. The State of Maharashtra in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No(s). 3363/2024, wherein vide order dated 18.09.2024 in the context ofbail, the court while considering the case of the petitioner therein who wasunable to furnish local surety inspite of having been granted bail, thefollowing observation was made at para 6 which is cited herein below:

“6.It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioneris unable to secure the benefit of bail order for hisinability to furnish local surety. This will infringe therights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitutionfor the person, who continues to be detained despite abail order in his favour.”

9. At para 7 of the said Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided as follows:

“7.Having considered the circumstances here, wedeem it appropriate to say that the petitioner bereleased on bail on his personal bond without insistingon local surety, to ensure compliance with this Court’sbail order dated 03.05.2024. It is orderedaccordingly.”

10. Under similar circumstances, this Court would also concede to the prayer made by the petitioner and hereby modifies the order dated19.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (supra) in BailApplication Nos. 26, 27 & 29 of 2024, the relevant portion which reads as“…are granted default bail on execution of a PR Bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of like amount…”, only withrespect to the case of the petitioner herein, shall now read as follows “isgranted default bail on execution of a personal bond of 2000/- (Rupees₹two thousand)”. The other conditions being kept intact.

11. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to be releasedon bail on compliance with the fresh bail conditions aforementioned.

12. Petition disposed of. No costs.

Judge