ENRITA N. MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ND Chullai, the learned Public Prosecutor, have been heard at length.

(2.) This application under Section 439 CrPC is for granting bail to Shri. Champion R Sangma who has been detained in custody since 3-9-2012 in connection with Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 10(2) of 2012 under Section 121A/302/34 IPC read with Section 10/13 U.A (P) Act 1967 and 27 of Arms Act.

(3.) The case of the accused as projected by Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that even after the lapse of 90(ninety) days, the police has failed to submit the charge sheet till now and as such the accused is entitled to be released on bail by invoking the proviso (a)(i) sub-Section (2) of Section 167 CrPC. Opposing the bail application, Mr. ND Chullai, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that even though the charge sheet could not be submitted by the police within 90(ninety) days, the bail application of the accused cannot, notwithstanding the newly inserted proviso, be allowed as any possible lapse on the part of the police to file the charge sheet within 90 days is saved by the proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008, which says that the accused shall not be released on bail if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against him is prima facie true. The learned Public Prosecutor takes me to the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police heretofore during investigation and submit that the evidence collected by the police till now are more than sufficient to convict the accused of the offences charged against him. The learned Public Prosecutor also emphasizes time and again that the accused is involved in terrorist activities and creating a reign of terror in Meghalaya, particularly, in Garo Hills, and to release him on bail at this stage will enable to continue and unlawful activities in the State. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to keep the public interest in mind and to reject the application. I have given my anxious consideration to the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. As already noticed, the existing proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 167, CrPC has now been modified by Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008. Section 43-D of this Amendment reads thus: