"Liberty Is Sacrosanct, Must Be Safeguarded Under Law": High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Shillong Police Bazar IED Blast Case
The Meghalaya High Court granted regular bail to the accused who was arrested by the Police in connection with a low-intensity bomb blast that occurred in Shillong's Police Bazar in the year 2022. The Court granted bail after noting that the accused was under custody for two and half years and there was a bleak chance to get the trial completed as a substantial number of witnesses are yet to...
The Meghalaya High Court granted regular bail to the accused who was arrested by the Police in connection with a low-intensity bomb blast that occurred in Shillong's Police Bazar in the year 2022.
The Court granted bail after noting that the accused was under custody for two and half years and there was a bleak chance to get the trial completed as a substantial number of witnesses are yet to be called to court for recording of their deposition.
The bench comprising Justices W. Diengdoh and B. Bhattacharjee observed:
“It is well settled that the law of parity when applied to a situation concerning the applicability of principles of bail jurisprudence, the primary principle being “Bail and not Jail”, meaning thereby that the liberty of a citizen is sacrosanct and has to be safeguarded, though within the confines and limit of law, where a co-accused has been enlarged on bail under similar sets of circumstances, as is the case herein, then failure to apply the principle to the benefit of the appellant in this case will only be seen as a discriminatory action.”, the court said.
The appellant-accused was arrested on the allegation that he was involved in the said blast by directly supplying the explosives to the main accused. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) heading the investigation had registered a case against the appellant under Sections 120B/435/436 IPC read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Section 10(b)(ii) and 13(1) & 13(2) of the UA(P) Act, 1967.
The appellant moved an application for bail before the Special Judge seeking parity with co-accused who were granted the benefit of bail having the same charge labelled against them. The Special Judge refused to allow the appellant's application and denied bail.
Following this, the appeal was preferred before the High Court.
Before the High Court, it was contended by the Appellant's counsel that the reasons cited by the Special Judge while denying bail i.e., the appellant had procured the explosives and handed them over to the other accused, cannot be grounds for further incarceration of the appellant when the chain also includes the involvement of other co-accused respectively, who were since enlarged on bail. In essence, the appellant pleaded parity with other co-accused.
The Court found that the Special Judge's observation was not well-founded while denying the benefit of bail to the appellant as according to the court the role of the appellant in the alleged crime would be revealed in the trial itself.
“The learned Special Judge in making observations that the appellant's prayer for grant of bail based on the ground of parity cannot be accepted as he was the one who has directly supplied the explosive to A-1, is not well founded as only during the trial will the complicity and role played by the individual accused persons be revealed.”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to be released on bail if not wanted in other case(s) on his subscribing to comply with the following conditions:
"i) That he will not abscond or tamper with the witnesses;
ii) That he will not leave the jurisdiction of this State without the prior permission of the Trial Court;
iii) That he shall appear in court as and when required; and
iv) That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.”
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI. with Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, Adv. Ms. F. Langbnang, Adv. Ms. R. Fancon, Adv.
Case Title: Shri. Wallam Jingsuk Barim Vs. The Union of India & Ors., Crl.A. No. 34 of 2024
Click here to read/download the judgment