Waskuruni Miah vs State Of Meghalaya

W. Diengdoh, J

The petitioner has approached this Court with this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C with a prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with Tura Women P.S. Case No.24(4)2021 under Section 366 A IPC.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a driver of an auto-rickshaw which is a public carrier and on 02.04.2021 he recalled two passengers, a boy and a girl approaching him at Phulbari, West Garo Hills District with a request to drop them off at Mahendraganj on payment of fare, which he accordingly did so.

However, in the month of August, 2021, he came to know that the police are looking for him in connection with a case of kidnapping which happened on 02.04.2021. On learning about the same, he approached a lawyer who advised him to get certified copies of the FIR and other documents and having received the same, he thereafter applied for pre-arrest bail before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tura, West Garo Hills, which application was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2022.

Mr. A. S. Siddiqui, learned Sr. counsel speaking on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the case as his duty is to ferry any passenger on payment of fare and as such, is not connected in any manner with the alleged disappearance of the girl, therefore being apprehensive of the likelihood of arrest in connection with the said Tura Women P.S. Case No. 24(4)2021.

It is further submitted that the petitioner if granted pre-arrest bail, is willing to cooperate with the police to establish his innocence and he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence.

It is therefore, prayed that this application may be allowed with any conditions imposed by this Court.

Also heard Mr. K. P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA who has submitted that the case diary as called for by this Court is duly produced for kind perusal.

It is also submitted that from the contents of the case diary, what can be seen is that the petitioner is not a mere auto-rickshaw driver, but is a close relative of the main accused, who has allegedly kidnapped the minor girl named in the FIR and as such, the statement of the petitioner herein that he is unaware of the identity of the passengers who boarded his auto-rickshaw on 02.04.2021 is misleading. In fact, his name clearly figures in the FIR as a close relative of Toukir, the main accused.

Considering the fact that the minor girl has not yet been traced till date, Mr. Bhattacharjee has further submitted that granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage may hamper the process of investigation.

This Court has given due consideration to the submission of the parties and what is apparent is that a case of an alleged kidnapping involving a minor girl is on record and the same is under investigation. For almost a year, the said minor girl has not yet been traced despite the efforts of the Investigating Officer.

It is also apparent, as submitted by the learned GA that the petitioner has given a false statement before this Court to the effect that he claimed not to have known the couple whom he had ferried from Phulbari to Mahendraganj on 02.04.2021, on the pretext that they are one of the passengers who had boarded his auto-rickshaw. However, prima facie evidence revealed that he is a close relative of the main accused and as such, would be acquainted with the situation.

Under the circumstances, the petitioner has forfeited his right to approach this Court as he has not come before the Court with clean hands.

In view of the observations made above, this application is hereby rejected. The interim bail granted to the petitioner also stands rejected.

The police are directed to take the petitioner into custody and to question him on all aspects of the case including his relationship with the main accused named Toukir.

With the above, this petition is hereby disposed of.

Registry is directed to send back the case diary.