SHILLONG/ NEW DELHI: In a major embarrassment to the state government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered immediate release of jailed GNLA supremo Champion R Sangma and derided the authorities for various lapses.
A bench of justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan also set aside the order passed by the additional district magistrate (judicial) allowing an application made by the prosecution against the release of Sangma.
The Apex Court in its order noted that the application, which prayed for rejection of bail to Sangma was defective as the former police officer had never filed any bail application.
Advocates Liz Mathew, Shahrukh Alam and Philip Mathew represented the petitioner. Advocates Ranjan Mukherjee, Daniel Stone Lyngdoh and Subhro Sanyal appeared for the respondents.
There were several criminal cases against Sangma and in some of the pending cases, he had been granted bail except one in which a charge-sheet was filed.
After the registration of FIR in one of the cases sometime in 2011, the petitioner could not be arrested as, according to the respondent, he had absconded. He was declared an absconder and a charge-sheet was filed in 2012.
However, till January 2018, the petitioner had been granted bail in all cases and he should have been released from custody. But an application was made by the prosecution in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Resubelpara, North Garo Hills. The application stated that the petitioner had submitted a bail application in the court and a request was made that the bail application be rejected.
The Apex Court said though the prosecution has moved an application before the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), North Garo Hills, opposing the bail application made by the petitioner in the Court, in fact, no such bail application was ever filed by the petitioner.
There was no question of filing any bail application in the first place as the petitioner was never arrested in this case.
When the application of the prosecution purportedly opposing the bail application of the petitioner was filed, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) did not have any records of the case except the application which was put up before him and the averments made therein.
No notice of this application was ever served upon the petitioner. The application was considered exparte.
The Court observed that the order passed by the ADM was non-est, nullity and without any jurisdiction as the application by the prosecution was not admissible under any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court also held that the manner in which the State proceeded in the matter is impermissible, illegal and violative of Article 21.
Champion Sangma’s lawyer Sujit Dey said the order of the Supreme Court has been communicated to the state government.
