SHILLONG, Aug 11: The High Court of Meghalaya has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of three persons who were allegedly involved in the July 24 incident of violence in Tura.
A single-judge bench of Justice Wanlura Diengdoh said the applications of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail could not be considered in view of the bar under section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
S Deb, counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are not at all involved in the incident though they were present at the place of occurrence on that day.
“In fact, the petitioner Labenn Ch Marak, who is a senior leader of the ACHIK, as well as the petitioner Balkarin Ch Marak, who is the Co-Chairman of GHSMC and Bernita R Marak, who is the General Secretary, ACHIK were in the company of the chief minister when the incident took place and as such, they could not have been involved in what happened outside the building,” the counsel argued.
It was submitted that the petitioners came to know from credible sources about the charge that they were the actual conspirators and for which the police started looking for them, apparently to arrest them. Being apprehensive of the likelihood of arrest, the petitioners approached the court for grant of anticipatory bail.
The counsel for the petitioners again submitted that apart from the number of offences under the Indian Penal Code, the inclusion of the provision of section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and on prayer by the Investigating Officer (I/O), two days after the filing of these applications, for inclusion of section 15(1)(b)/16 of the said Act in the case against the petitioners herein and others was only made to harass the petitioners and to curtail their personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 21.
On the other hand, the Advocate General, appearing for the state, submitted that the magnitude of what happened on that day, especially involving high dignitaries no less than the CM, such incident would indeed qualify as an “unlawful activity” coming within the definition as found under section 2(o) of the UAP Act.
The AG added that the punishment for such unlawful activities would, therefore, be under section 13 of the said Act. Again, such act has threatened the unity, integrity and security of the state and is also to attempt to cause death of any public functionary.
In this backdrop, the AG argued that the applications of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered in view of the bar under section 43D(4) of the UAP Act, 1967.
The AG also referred to the contents of the case diary to say that the I/O had affirmatively indicated that the petitioners were very much present on the said day at the Mini Secretariat building and there are also statements made by witnesses who stated that they were instigated by the petitioners to protest at the said venue.
The court said under the facts and circumstances of what happened on July 24 and the consequent registration of the police case, the investigation is still going on.
“The I/O in his wisdom has thought it fit that the incident apart from being violent in nature, the presence of the CM and other dignitaries and obviously being the target of the mob’s ire, on being instigated by the petitioners herein and others who have taken part in the said violent action, therefore, a case under the UAP Act, 1967, apart from the penal provisions under the IPC has been made out,” the court said in its order.
It said from the contents of the case diary, it was found that the involvement of the petitioners in the case was referred to by some witnesses. However, the I/O has not been able to detail the exact role or involvement of the petitioners in the incident.
“Be that as it may, considering the fact that the nature of the offence is serious and grave, at this juncture this Court cannot interfere with the process of investigation. Given the fact that section 13 of the UAP Act has been included in the case with section 15(1)(b)/16 sought to be added, the applications under section 438 CrPC preferred by the petitioners have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the UAP Act, section 43D(4) being the relevant provision,” the court said.
“In conclusion, when there is an express bar under section 43D(4) of the UAP Act, these applications under section 438 CrPC cannot be maintained. The same are hereby rejected,” the court further said.
