Tankeswar Deka vs State Of Meghalaya

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking pre-arrest bail in Case No. 16(6) of 2019 under Sections 188/379/426/420/120(B) IPC read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 and Section 7 of Meghalaya Forest (Removal of Timber) (Regulation) Act, 1981 registered at Bajengdoba Police Station.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was lodged on 01.06.2019 in connection with one truck loaded with saw timbers coming from Dudhnoi side which was proceeding to Dhubri, Assam. The driver Shri Hafizul Rahman who was driving the truck was arrested and interrogated wherein, it was stated by him that those timbers in the truck were brought from Mairang village but the Transit Pass was procured from M/S Mamata Veneer Products, Umiam Ri-Bhoi District. On further investigation, the Investigating Officer was informed that M/S Mamata Veneer Products has been closed two years back, which statement was found to be false whereas, the said unit is fully functioning and has also obtained the GST Registration Certificate bearing GST No. 17APTPD6089EIZI issued on 28.07.2018. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer came across Shri Harandayal Singh, son of Late Ramu Ram who is working in the Saw Mill adjacent to M/S Mamata Veneer Products, who according to the petitioner had named 4 - 5 persons wherein, the name of the petitioner was also mentioned. It was on that basis, the petitioner was interrogated. The petitioner claimed that he is neither the proprietor nor connected in any manner with M/S Mamata Veneer Products whereas, his only dealing with M/S Mamata Veneer Products was for some time which was not on regular basis. The petitioner had approached the learned trial court seeking concession of Pre-arrest bail which was declined vide order dated 28.06.2019 thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the present application.

On 05.07.2019, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 08.07.2019 at 11.00 AM for further interrogation and was also directed to cooperate with the investigation. In the meantime, arrest of the petitioner was stayed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigation Officer on 08.07.2019 when his statement was recorded. He also assured the Court that the petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and will also cooperate with the investigation.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and since the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in the event of arrest in connection with the said case, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing a surety bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) subject to the following conditions:

(a) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(c) that the petitioner shall not leave the country without previous permission of the Court;

(d) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail was granted under that section.

The Pre-arrest bail is hereby, confirmed. Disposed of accordingly.