High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 12 MEG CK 0013

Shri Atul Das and another vs State of Meghalaya and others

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 13 December 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Maheshwari
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
21 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 382 words
1.

This matter was required to be passed over twice for the reason that the learned Public Prosecutor was not having the Case Diary with him and

submitted that the Investigating Officer had not reached the Court. It is difficult to appreciate the laxity on the part of the Investigating Officer who failed to provide the Case Diary to the Public Prosecutor well within time. The learned Public Prosecutor assures that all the corrective measures shall be taken so as to prevent any repetition of such a default.

2.

On the kind of injuries on the person of the alleged victim, as indicated by the learned Public Prosecutor from the Case Diary, prima facie, it is

difficult to find as to how at all the FIR has been registered for an offence under Section 307 IPC? Learned Public Prosecutor assures that after examining the matter, the concerned officers shall be advised appropriately.

3.

On the queries of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the relevant point of time, this bail application was required to be

moved in this Court because of non-availability of Sessions Judge concerned and for want of clarity on investiture of powers with the newly appointed Additional Sessions Judge. However, it is not in dispute that the bail application can now be moved before the Sessions Judge. In the given circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw so as to move the bail application before the Sessions Judge concerned but also prays for protection of the petitioners until such bail application is moved and considered. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate to grant such indulgence to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw and this bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the appropriate application before the Sessions Judge concerned.

4.

In the circumstances of the case, it is also provided that the petitioners shall not be arrested in relation to Shella P.S. Case No.20 (12) 2017 for

a period of one week from today. In the meantime, the petitioners may move an appropriate application before the Sessions Judge, Shillong, who would examine the same on merits, irrespective of any observations made herein.

5.

This application stands disposed of accordingly.