Stimbirth T. Sangma vs State Of Meghalaya & 3 Ors

W. Diengdoh, J

On 31.05.2022 an FIR was lodged before the Officer In-charge Williamnagar Police Station, East Garo Hills by one Shri. Dominic T. Sangma alleging that on the day before at about 6:00 P.M the petitioner herein came to his house and has assaulted with a wooden plank resulting in serious injuries on his leg and head. Hence the complaint.

On receipt of the said FIR, the police accordingly registered a case being Williamnagar PS Case No. 20(05)2022 under section 326 IPC and investigation was launched.

The petitioner on coming to know that the police are looking for him have preferred an application with a prayer for pre-arrest bail before the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Williamnagar. However, vide order dated 06.06.2022 the learned District & Sessions Judge rejected the application on the ground that no averments nor submission was made that the petitioner is apprehending arrest.

The petitioner has then approached this Court with this instant application with a prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with the said Williamnagar PS case.

Mr. P. T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is named in the said FIR and the case being registered is one under section 326 IPC which is a cognizable and non-bailable offence and as such, there is strong apprehension on the part of the petitioner that he may be arrested at any point of time.

The petitioner has not denied the occurrence as alleged but has however submitted that the alleged injuries received by the victim are minor injuries for which he was hospitalized only for a day and that now he is fully recovered and is normal and healthy. It is also the submission of the petitioner that he has no intention to cause any injury or harm to the victim who is his father-in-law but the incident happened due to some misunderstanding between them.

To further strengthen his case, the petitioner in his petition has cited the provision of section 320 IPC which speaks of grievous hurt and has reiterated that the there is no evidence that the victim has suffered any of the injuries mentioned in the said section and as such, the offence alleged against the petitioner cannot be one of inflicting grievous injuries.

The learned counsel has submitted that the apprehension of being arrested looms large in the face of the petitioner’s situation and if not protected by an order of pre-arrest bail, his reputation will be tarnished.

Again, the learned counsel has submitted that in the event of his arrest if he is enlarged on bail the petitioner would abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and will also provide sufficient surety if called upon to do so.

Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG, along with Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA, appearing on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that the case diary as called for has been duly produced before this Court and on perusal of the same, this Court will notice that the petitioner was indeed responsible for assault on the victim who is his own father-in-law and as a result thereof, had sustained grievous injuries. It is therefore, submitted that the Court may passed necessary orders in this regard.

Upon hearing the parties, what can be understood here is that an incident had occurred involving the petitioner and the alleged victim who is his father-in-law and who, as a result of being assaulted by the petitioner has sustained serious injuries. On an FIR being lodged, the petitioner being named therein apprehends imminent arrest and has accordingly approached the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Williamnagar and on not getting a favourable order has now approached this Court.

Section 438 Cr.P.C provides that any person who has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence may approached the High Court or the Court of Sessions with a prayer for grant of bail in the event of his arrest. The Court on consideration of the application may allow the prayer after considering the following factors:

i. the nature and gravity of the accusation;

ii. the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

iii. the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

iv. where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail;

Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.

On the nature and gravity of the accusation, section 326 IPC is the penal provision for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means has been cited as the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The penalty for the same may include life imprisonment or a minimum 10 years’ term of imprisonment.

However, as pointed out, under section 320 IPC a list of the kinds of hurt designated as grievous hurt has been given as:-

First —

Emasculation

Secondly —

Permanent privation of the sight of either eye

Thirdly. —

Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,

Fourthly. —

Privation of any member or joint.

Fifthly. —

Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

Sixthly. —

Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

Seventhly. —

Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly. —

Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

The medical report of the victim has not indicated any of the above hurts to lent credence to the opinion that the nature of the injuries sustained are grievous. However, though this is a prima facie observation, the final evaluation would be subject to the course of investigation and trial for which this Court at this juncture would not venture to pass any opinion.

This Court however is convinced that the petitioner is in fact apprehending arrest and taking into consideration his antecedent, with no history of criminal activities, the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail may be considered.

Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner is hereby made absolute however, apart from the conditions set forth while allowing the petitioner to be enlarged on interim bail the following additional conditions have to be complied by the petitioner:-

i. That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of India during the pendency of the investigation and the trial, if at all.

ii. That he shall bind himself by way of a personal bond for an amount of ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Williamnagar.

iii. That he shall not tamper with evidence and witnesses.

In view of the above, this petition is hereby disposed of. No costs.

Registry is directed to return the case diary.