STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. NURUL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has a chequered history. Widely circulated local daily "The Shillong Times" in its publication on 26.06.2015 reported news under the caption "Twin court order stunts Nurul's family" wherein, it is reported that the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam (present accused) was granted bail on 24.06.2015, bail bond was accepted and on the same day the bail was cancelled. The said news item was brought to the notice of this Court by the Registry. Accordingly, the report had been called from the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, who passed the said bail order for granting bail to the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam. On receipt of the said report for passing the said bail orders, this Court had taken up the matter on judicial side. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong to whom the charge sheet No. 12/2013 dated 06.11.2013 under Sections 342/354/376(2)(a)(i)/506 IPC R/w Section 6/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was submitted on 06.11.2013, had passed the order dated 24.06.2015 for granting bail to the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam. No reason had been given by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong for entertaining the bail application on the very day, the accused Police Office Md. Nurul Islam had personally appeared and surrendered before the Court. Later on, on the same day, the said bail order dated 24.06.2015 which was passed in the early hours of the court working hours had been cancelled and allowed the prayer of the Superintendent of Police (City), Shillong to thoroughly interrogate the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam and for that purpose, the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam was remanded to 14 days judicial custody (Sic Police custody) for interrogation. On 08.07.2015, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong passed the order dated 08.07.2015 for allowing the accused Police Officer Md. Nurul Islam to go on bail. For convenience, the said two orders of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong dated 24.06.2015 and 08.07.2015 are reproduced hereunder: - -

(2.) THE Accused shall not threaten the complainant, victims, witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances.

(3.) THE Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court.