TOBIAS R. MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned Sr. counsel along with Mr. D. Hynniewta, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner was allowed to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail in connection with Laban P.S. Case No. 52 (07) of 2021 under Sec. 323 read with Sec. 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) On the day when the said pre-arrest bail was made absolute, a number of conditions were set out by the learned Court, inter alia, that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without the permission of the Court concerned. The learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the petitioner being a contractor by profession is required to pursue his vocation throughout the State of Meghalaya and if restricted, his livelihood will be at stake. It is therefore prayed that the said condition be relaxed to the extent that the petitioner be allowed free passage within the State of Meghalaya and even if any condition or undertaking is called for in this regard, the petitioner would comply with the same.

(3.) Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondent has objected to the prayer made and has pointed out that in the instant application, the petitioner has annexed copies of the work orders said to be issued in favour of the petitioner, but spelled out in the name of M/s J.T.R. Enterprise and such work order dtd. 22/3/2021 is said to expire within twelve months, the period having been already completed. The next work order relates to an order dtd. 2/3/2022 also having an expiry period of twelve months will also expire next month that is, in the month of March, 2023. On this ground, the learned GA has objected to the prayer made, contending that the same is without any basis.