High Court · 2009

Heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners . Also heard Mrs. M Bora, learned State counsel, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the respondents. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents, more particul arly, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to forthwith send the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, wh o are in custody under respondent Nos.4 and 5 on completion of necessary formali ties for their release at Guwahati on personal bond to the satisfaction of respo ndent No.7, in terms of the order dated 22.5.09, granting bail in BA No.84(AP)20 09 and/or to issue a direction to the respondent No.7, i.e. the Judicial Magistr ate, 1st Class, Roing to accept the personal bond of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and pass necessary order for their release on regular bail. Considering the grievance raised in this petition as well as the written instruction received by Mrs. Bora, learned State counsel and also as ag reed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself with the following order. Petitioners case in a nutshell is that pursuant to an FIR dated 7.11.08 lodged by one Dature Miuli before the Roing Police Station against the p etitioner Nos.1 and 2, the police registered a case being Roing PS Case No.85/20 08 u/s 420/34 IPC and arrested them on 4.4.09. Since then they are in custody in Roing, Arunachal Pradesh. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the relatives of petitione r Nos.1 and 2. A bail application being moved before the Itanagar Bench of this Court praying for releasing the petitioners on bail, the Court vide order dated 22.5.09 passed in BA No.84(AP)2009 allowed the petitioners to go on bail under Section 439 CrPC on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one local su rety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistr ate, 1st Class, Roing subject to such appropriate condition(s) as may be directe d by the learned Magistrate. After receipt of the bail order when the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 went to Roing, Arunachal Pradesh for releasing the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they were attacked by the complainant and their accomplices. Confronting with that situation, the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were compelled to return to Guw ahati without releasing the two arrested accused persons. Thereafter, one writ p etition being WP(C) No.2430/09 was filed by the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 before th is Court praying for a direction to the State respondents for providing police p rotection to them for making arrangements for filing bail bonds before the appro priate court. In view of the prayer so made, vide order dated 24.6.09, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Roing to provide necessary police protection to petitioner Nos.3 and 4 to enable them to attend the competent court either for filing bail bonds or for making approp riate application provided that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 shall apply to the Su perintendent of Police, Roing within a period of one week. By the said order pet itioner Nos.3 and 4 were also directed to approach the Superintendent of Police, Roing so that he can take appropriate steps for providing police protection as required for the petitioner Nos.3 and 4. Immediately after passing of the said o rder, on 30.6.09, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 approached the court of Judicial Magist rate, 1st Class, Roing along with the bailors accompanied by police of Arunachal Pradesh. But as soon as they reached the court, before starting of any proceedi ng as to verification of bail bonds etc. the informant rushed to the court with a group of 100 numbers of people armed with lathi, dao, axe etc. and searched th e petitioner Nos.3 and 4 to kill them. Therefore, finding no other alternative p etitioner Nos.3 and 4 along with the bailors returned to Guwahati with the help of police of Arunachal Pradesh. Hence, this second writ petition with the afores aid prayer. On 17.7.09, this Court directed the State counsel to obtain nece ssary instruction in this regard. Today when the matter is called upon for motio n hearing, Mrs. Bora, learned State counsel has placed before this Court the wri tten instruction dated 20.7.09 received by her from the Superintendent of Police , Lower Dibang Valley District, Roing. I have perused the same. Perusal of the same would reveal that p ursuant to the direction of this Court issued vide order dated 24.6.09 in WP(C) No.2430/09, as soon as information received about arrival of the petitioner and party at Roing, SI, SR Yadav and SI, SM Singha along with two constables of Roin g PS were detailed with petitioner Nos.3 and 4 for their security without waitin g for their approach. Accordingly, the detailed Police personnel were with them from 1130 hrs. to 1600 hrs on 30.06.09. They were later escorted up to Check gat e Shantipur on their back journey and accommodated them in Shantipur I.B of Assa m vide Roing PS GD entry No.852, 854 and 858 dtd.30.6.09. From the aforesaid communication, it is further revealed that as alleged by the petitioners no group of people numbering about 100 with lethal w eapon were seen and turned up either in the chamber of the Magistrate, Roing or outside. In fact, on the said date, the complainant of the case along with two l ocal Advocates were present in the office chamber of the Magistrate, Roing at th e time of petitioners’ arrival. However, when the court of learned Judicial Magi strate, 1st Class, Roing has asked the petitioners for two local sureties (one e ach for both the accused) for furnishing bail bond both the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 and their party submitted that they are unable to fulfill the requirement and then left the court without filing petition/bail order before the Judicial Magi strate, 1st Class, Roing. It is stated in the aforesaid communication that whene ver the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 or their people arrived at Roing, police protecti on group shall accompany them. Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners concede d that it is a fact that they were not able to produce two local sureties as the y have no known persons in that locality. Upon perusal of the materials on record as well as by taking the aforesaid submission into consideration, I am of the opinion that insistence of a local bailor will cause hardships and injustice to the accused petitioners. I , therefore, modify the bail order dated 22.5.09 only to the extent of dischargi ng the burden of producing local bailors by the accused petitioners. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the accused petitioners w ill make a cash deposit of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with a PR b ond each of the same amount for ensuring their appearance in subsequent date in the court for trial. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Roing shall release the ac cused petitioners on receipt of the cash deposit and PR bond as ordered hereby. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Copy of this communication dated 20.7.09 be kept on record.