The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. CRL. M.C. No.36/2013 In CRL. REVN.P.No.37/2013 Investigating Officer & Officer-in-Charge, Ampati Police Station. :::: Petitioner 1. 2. 3. -Vs- Shri.Prohlad Hajong, S/o (L) Gojendra Hajong, R/o Village Marpara, PS Ampati, PO Betasing, South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. Smti.Konica Hajong, W/o Shri. Narendra Hajong, R/o Village Marpara, PS Ampati, PO Betasing, South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.
Legal Reasoning
granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused. This Court in Criminal Revision Petition i.e. Crl. Revn.P.No.(SH)372013 filed against the said Page 2 of 5 perfunctory order of the Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura dated 26.04.2013, made a very serious observations against the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura vide order dated 13.05.2013 passed in Crl.Revn.P.No.(SH)37/2013. This Court also expressed displeasure and anguish against the concerned Magistrate i.e. the Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura for passing the said perfunctory order dated 26.04.2013 for granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused. 3. This Court by the said order dated 13.05.2013 made a direction that “all the bail applications moved before any court should be supported by an affidavit stating whether the bail applications moved earlier with result, secondly, whether any bail application moved before the Higher Court with result, thirdly, whether any bail application is pending before the Higher Court and also to annex a copy of the order passed by the respective Courts.” 4. The present suo-motto Criminal Misc. Case No.(SH)36/2013 arising out of Criminal Revn.P. No.(SH)37/2013, is taken up on the basis of a report dated 07.06.2013 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, West Garo Hills, Tura stating that the High Court counsel Mr. R Kar had informed Mr.D. Tulshyan, Advocate over phone on 25.04.2013, after the Hon’ble Judge rejected the anticipatory bail prayer, that the bail prayer had been rejected and the accused are directed to surrender either before the competent court or before the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the respondents-accused had surrendered before the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura by filing bail applications and on that bail applications, the learned Additional District Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura passed the perfunctory order dated 26.04.2013 for granting anticipatory Page 3 of 5 bail to the respondents-accused whose bail applications had been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2013. 5. This Court had directed Mr. R Kar, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents in the said anticipatory bail application before the High Court and Mr. D Tulshyan, Advocate to file their comments as to how and why they had misled the Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura that this Court had directed the respondents-accused to surrender before the competent court or the Investigating Officer, whereas, there was no order in this regard by this Court. 6. Mr. R Kar, learned counsel filed comment stating that he did not appear for the respondents-accused before the High Court in connection with the said anticipatory bail application i.e. A.B. No.(SH)38/2013 of this Court filed by the respondents-accused on 25.04.2013. On 25.04.2013, one of his junior appeared before this Court in connection with the said anticipatory bail i.e. A.B.No.(SH)38/2013. Mr. R Kar, further states that the result of the bail application No.(SH)38/2013 filed by the appellant-accused before this Court had simply been informed over phone to Mr. D. Tulshyan, Advocate, who gave advice to the respondents-accused that they have to surrender before the competent court or the Investigating Officer. By that time, the copy of the order of this Court dated 25.04.2013 rejecting the anticipatory bail application i.e. A.B.No.(SH)38/2013 of this Court also could not be obtained. 7. Mr. D. Tulshyan, Advocate also filed his comment dated 23.10.2013, that because of the non-availability of the certified copy of the order of this Court dated 25.04.2013 rejecting the anticipatory bail of the Page 4 of 5 respondents-accused by this Court, he was under the impression that the Court had directed the respondents-accused to surrender before the competent court or the Investigating Officer and also he misunderstood the information from Mr. R Kar regarding the rejection of the anticipatory bail application. Mr. D Tulshyan, Advocate in his comment by way of an affidavit dated 23.10.2013 stated that “I had no mala-fide intention to interfere with the process of law nor to mislead the Hon’ble Court and it appears to be the result of communication gap.” 8. However, the Court is to caution that Mr. D. Tulshyan, Advocate should be very careful and cautious in informing the order of this Court to any authority. It also appears that Mr. Tulshyan, Advocate had also made an apology for the said miscommunication between Mr. R Kar and himself. 9. With the above observations, this criminal misc. case is closed. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) JUDGE Page 5 of 5
Arguments
Shri. Rinku Hajong, S/o Shri.Gadula Hajong, R/o Village Marpara, PS Ampati, PO Betasing, South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. :::: Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T NANDAKUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner For the Respondents Date of hearing Date of Judgment & Order : : : : Mr. ND Chullai, PP, Mrs.NG Shylla, Addl.P.P. Mr. R Kar, Ms. SG Momin, Advs. 23.10.2013 23.10.2013 Page 1 of 5 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) 1. This Court passed an order dated 25.04.2013 rejecting the anticipatory bail application i.e. A.B.(SH)No.38/2013 filed by the respondents-accused namely, Shri.Prohlad Hajong, Smti. Konica Hajong and Shri.Rinku Hajong. In that order, the Court did not give any direction to the respondents-accused to surrender before the competent court or to the Investigating Officer. In other words, the Court simply passed the said order dated 24.05.2013 rejecting the said anticipatory bail application i.e. A.B. (SH)No.38/2013. After the rejection of the said anticipatory bail application i.e. A.B.(SH)No.38/2013, the respondents-accused had surrendered in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura. It appears that the Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura had not been informed by the lawyer appearing for the respondents-accused correctly the earlier order of this Court dated 25.04.2013. 2. The learned Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura, had passed the order dated 26.04.2013 granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused even if this Court by the said order dated 25.04.2013 had rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by the respondents- accused. This Court is compelled to make observation that no doubt the accused has the right to file the repeatedly bail applications but the subsequent bail application can be filed only when there is subsequent development. In the present case, it appears that there were no changes or subsequent developments but the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), West Garo Hills, Tura passed the perfunctory order dated 26.04.2013 for