Bernard N. Marak v. The State of Meghalaya

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶1Heard Ms. A. Kharmyndai, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner on an earlier occasion had approached the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tura for grant of bail in connection with Tura Women P.S. Case No. 189(08) of 2022 under Section 120B/384/417/420/467/468/471 IPC, which was accordingly granted vide order dated 02.12.2022. However, not being satisfied with one of the

conditions of bail issued vide the aforesaid order, the prayer for modification of some of the bail conditions therein was preferred before this Court in Crl.Petn. No. 11 of 2023 wherein, this Court vide order dated 16.02.2023 had allowed the same and had modified the said bail condition to the extent that the petitioner/accused is free to travel within the State of Meghalaya.

¶2The petitioner/accused has now again approach this Court by this instant petition seeking for modification of the said condition, inasmuch as, it is submitted that the petitioner/accused is required to travel outside the State of Meghalaya for his professional and personal reasons, but due to the said condition, he could not do so. Accordingly, prayer is made in this petition to modify the said bail condition to allow the petitioner/accused to travel outside the State.

¶3Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State respondent has objected firstly, to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that a similar petition as mentioned above has been filed before this Court under the same provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C and as such, any order passed in this petition would amount to a review of the said order dated

16.02.2023. Secondly, the learned AAG has also pointed out that in the said order dated 16.02.2023, this Court has held that the "bail condition was relaxed. However, in case the petitioner is to travel outside the State of Meghalaya, prior permission of the Court is required", the Court meaning the Trial Court or the Court wherein the original bail order was passed. It is

therefore prayed that this petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.

¶4This Court has given due consideration to the submission made, however, the issue of maintainability would not be addressed at this point of time, suffice it to say that the second limb of argument advanced by the learned AAG is found favorable by this Court, inasmuch as, this Court vide its order dated 16.02.2023 has given the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court, meaning the Court where the original bail order was passed for any modification of the said bail condition, including the prayer for permission to travel outside the State of Meghalaya. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶5Before parting, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court, wherein the said bail order was passed with any prayer as deemed fit and proper to be made before the said Court without the Court being influenced by the contents of the order passed herein.

¶6With the above, this petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Judge

Meghalaya

15.03.2023 "D. Nary, PS"

Serial No. 02 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.Petn. No. 21 of 2023 Date of Decision: 15.03.2023 Shri. Bernard N. Marak Vs. State of Meghalaya Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. A. Kharmyndai, Adv. vice Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Sr. Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG. with Ms. R. Colney, GA. i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: