SHILLONG, Jan 25: The Meghalaya Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has postponed the hearing of the case of those arrested on July 22 last year during a police raid at “Rimpu Bagan”, a farmhouse owned by BJP state vice president Bernard Marak in Tura.
The hearing was supposed to be held at Tura on January 18 and 19.
After learning about the MHRC’s decision, several of those, who were arrested, came out on Wednesday to speak to the media. One of them, a female, said they learnt that the hearing has been postponed in view of the upcoming Assembly elections.
“The hearing will be held only after the elections. But how is the MHRC connected with the elections?” she asked.
She further asked who will take the responsibility if anything happens to them till the hearing is held.
“We fear there is a threat to our lives. We are being targeted and we are not able to live freely like before. We are common citizens, dragged into this political conspiracy,” she said.
Altogether 35 of the arrested persons had filed separate complaints with the MHRC in August and September last year, pleading that they were falsely implicated and arrested for their alleged involvement in immoral activities.
“We had filed the case with the MHRC as we were wrongly accused of the crime. We are still depressed and traumatised. Our future is in jeopardy,” another woman said.
She insisted she should be cleared of all the charges and her reputation restored. She claimed the police told them that if they speak against Marak, then the charges against them will be dropped. According to her, the police even told them that they should vote against the BJP leader. The woman said the police also said they were unlucky that they were at the farmhouse on that fateful night.
Earlier, separate complaints were also lodged with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) by some of the arrested persons. One of them, a woman, said they were asked to give their statement to the SP of West Garo Hills as per the directive of the NHRC.
“But how can we give a statement to a police officer who was responsible for the arrest and how an SP can be an investigation officer in this case? The other officers should record our statement, not the SP,” she insisted.
According to her, she had told the SP that she was not aware the farmhouse is a “brothel”.
“We went there to hang out. I was surprised when the SP told me I can do all the wrong things in Orchid lodge and not in the farmhouse,” she alleged.
Further, she claimed the SP had told them that they should have sought his advice before lodging the complaint with the MHRC and the NHRC.
“Why should we seek help from him when he was the one who arrested us?” she said.
Meanwhile, another woman, who was arrested, accused the Investigating Officer Mamata Hajong of demanding Rs 6,000 to return their mobile phones which are in police custody.
