KLASSTARWELL WARJRI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application under Sec. 483 of BNSS 2023 is filed praying for release of the accused Shri. Rijessing Warjri on bail in connection with Mairang P.S Case No.21 (03) of 2025 under Sec. 103(1)/238(a) BNS 2023.

(2.) Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accused has been implicated in the case without any basis. He submits that despite the fact of not having any connection with the case, the accused person did not run away and all along has been cooperating with the investigation. He submits that even after the lapse of considerable period of time, there is no progress in the investigation of the case and it is yet to be ascertained whether deaths of the victims were homicidal death or not. He submits that the accused person voluntarily offered to undergo DNA test for establishing his innocence against the accusations made in the case. He submits that the rejection of all the bail applications earlier by the learned Judicial Magistrate were without proper appreciation of the relevant factors. He submits that the prayer for remand of the accused person in custody is made mechanically inasmuch as the same grounds for remand were reiterated every time by the investigating authority. He submits that the objection of the investigating authority that the release of the accused person may lead to public unrest or disturb social harmony is wholly untenable and unworthy of legal consideration. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the learned counsel submits that the seriousness of the charge cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the bail application and prays that the accused person may be enlarged on bail on any condition as deemed fit and proper.

(3.) Mr. N. Syngkon, learned Asst.PP on the other hand, vehemently objects to the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the accused person is not at all cooperating with the investigation. He submits that the investigating authority is yet to recover one mobile phone of the accused person and he has deleted all the data from his other mobile phone. He submits that the one mobile phone was destroyed by the accused person by setting it on fire. He submits that the accused person has all along been concealing the vital evidence of the case from the investigating authority and his release at this stage will hamper further investigation of the matter. He submits that offence involved in the present matter is very serious and there is every likelihood that the accused may influence the vital witnesses of the case. The learned Asst.PP refers to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1985) 2 SCC 597 Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and ors and submits that release of an accused person on bail in a murder case when the investigation of the case is in progress can only be made on very compelling circumstances. He submits that no compelling circumstances has been made out in this case and the bail application deserves to be rejected.