Only two out of 43 witnesses examined
SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya on Friday granted conditional bail to former MLA Julius Dorphang’s aide Elbert Shemphang Kharlukhi, who was arrested in connection with the rape of a 14-year-old girl in the city in 2017.
Several people, including Dorphang, were arrested in connection with the incident.
The single bench headed by Justice W. Diengdoh said that the accused is enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Another condition is that the accused should not abscond or tamper with the witnesses and evidence.
The accused should appear before the trial court as and when required and he should not leave Meghalaya without prior permission of the trial court.
The court made it clear that violation of any of the conditions will result in cancellation of the bail, for which the aggrieved party may approach the trial court for the same.
Earlier, counsel for the petitioner, K. Ch. Gautam, argued that Kharlukhi was associated with the main accused Dorphang only to the extent that he was the driver and was directed to book a room at the city based guest house where the alleged crime was committed by the main accused, not being aware of the reason or purpose for reservation of the room on behalf of the main accused, the petitioner therefore cannot be accused of being guilty of abetment.
According to the petitioner, the victim herself had deposed that she did not know the petitioner.
The counsel also submitted that the petitioner being a victim of circumstances is languishing in jail for more than two years after his arrest.
ND Chullai, Additional Advocate General, assisted by R Colney, opposed the plea for bail and submitted that the fact that the petitioner had arranged the room in which the offence was committed by the main accused, would only show that the complicity of the petitioner is that of abetment to a crime committed on an innocent minor.
The petitioner filed the application on the ground that the evidence of the witnesses has been recorded.
The court observed that the evidence of the complainant as well as of the victim has been duly recorded and from the list of witnesses appearing in the charge sheet, altogether there are 43 witnesses and apparently another 41 witnesses are to be examined.
“It is also logical to assume that at the pace in which the trial is proceeding, there is no possibility of expeditious completion of the proceeding within the next few months”, it said.
