High Court slams trial court for granting bail to kidnap accused

SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya has slammed a lower trial court for granting bail to an accused who was allegedly involved in the abduction of a senior citizen, Arabindra Kumar, from Jail Road earlier this year.
Aggrieved with the order of the lower court granting bail to the accused, the State police approached the High Court seeking redressal of their grievances.
The lower court had granted bail to accused Nurul Haque for a sum of Rs 50,000 on the ground that the Investigation Officer had failed to submit the remand report.
During the hearing on Friday, the counsel for Meghalaya Police and the State government vehemently challenged the impugned order and said that the remand report could not be submitted as the investigation Officer, K.P Singh, had gone to Tripura in connection with the same case for arresting the other co accused persons and to collect the information for the purpose of investigation.
Justice S.R Sen in his order observed that the trial court has failed to appreciate the criminal jurisprudence, but rather passed     an order in a very whimsical manner by passing a statutory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“We all know that while granting bail the Court is mainly guided by Section 437 and Section 167 CrPC along with other provisions as well as the gravity of offence. But here, it appears that the learned trial court has totally put all the procedures and principles on fire and passed a mechanical order without giving any reason before granting such bail”, the order said.
“I find that the concerned Magistrate has forgotten the gravity of offence and principle of criminal justice system, for which I express my anguish and displeasure”, the order said.
According to the order, in case if the IO fails to file the remand report, it is the duty of the Magistrate to call the prosecuting officer or the public prosecutor to inquire why the remand report has not been filed, but here it appears from the impugned order dated October 6, 2016 the Court did not take any step to inform the prosecuting officer or the public prosecutor before passing the said impugned order and the Court had also forgotten that the offence registered is under Section 364 (A) /34 IPC which is serious in nature.
Stating that the impugned order of the trial court has no legs to stand as it cannot be called as a ‘bail order’, the High Court also observed that if this kind of practice continues it will encourage criminals and will create havoc to the society and the country.
The Registry was also directed to send a copy of this judgment and order immediately to all the District and Sessions Judge to circulate among all the Magistrates as well as to the deputy commissioners who are still functioning as judicial officers, the Director General of Police, the superintendents of police, the public prosecutor and the prosecuting inspector.