BA. No. 20 of 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who

submits that the accused Shri Salki Ch. Sangma was arrested on

15.11.2014 and booked U/S 120 (B) IPC, read with Section 10/13 UAP

Act, 1967 under Shallang P.S. Case No. 30 (11) 2014 and since then, he

is in police custody and thereafter, is in judicial custody.

The learned counsel further contended that the accused person

is in custody for more than 148 days. So, he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel

appeared for and on behalf of the State along with the I/O Mr. N. Wahlang

and produce the C.D before me. Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel

submits that, there is a provision that, though, Section 167 Cr.P.C

applies, but in such a case, the cases under the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 custody may be extended up to 180 days subject

to the satisfaction of the court.

I have perused the C.D and after hearing the submissions

advanced by the learned counsels at Bar, it is an admitted fact that the

accused is in custody for 148 days. Section 43 D of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 speaks as follows:

“43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2),-

(a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days” respectively; and

(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-

“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said

period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days: Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody.”

(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that –

(a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof – (i) to “the State Government” shall be

construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State Government”,

(ii) to “order of the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be”, and

(b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be”.

(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing”.

On bare perusal of Section 43D it is understood and clear that

Section 167 Cr.P.C shall apply, however, there is an exception that, in

place of 60 days or 90 days, custody may be given up to 180 days for the

purpose of investigation, provided a report placed before the court by the

Public Prosecutor indicating the detailed progress of the investigation and

prayed for extension of time.

By this instant case, it is also an admitted fact that, no report

has been placed before the court with no reason that, why the mandatory

provision under section 167 Cr.P.C be extended up to 180 days.

Therefore, I am unable to reject the bail application. Accordingly, bail

application is allowed and the accused person is allowed to go on bail for

a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with one surety of the

like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Lower court

concerned with following conditions in case if he is not required in any

other case or cases:

1. The accused person shall appear before the I/O as and

when necessary for the purpose of investigation.

2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Nongstoin without

prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge.

3. He shall not interfere or tamper with the evidence.

4. He shall not intimidate or threat any person or his family

members.

5. He shall be bound to face the trial as and when required.

Court Master to return the C.D to the I/O concerned along with

a copy of this order to the learned State counsel.

With this observation and direction, the bail application is

allowed and stands disposed of.

JUDGE

D. Nary

BA. No. 21 of 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who

submits that the accused Shri Romeo R. Marak was arrested on

15.11.2014 and booked U/S 120 (B) IPC, read with Section 10/13 UAP

Act, 1967 under Shallang P.S. Case No. 30 (11) 2014 and since then, he

is in police custody and thereafter, is in judicial custody.

The learned counsel further contended that the accused person

is in custody for more than 148 days. So, he may be released on bail.

On the other hand, Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel

appeared for and on behalf of the State along with the I/O Mr. N. Wahlang

and produce the C.D before me. Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel

submits that, there is a provision that, though, Section 167 Cr.P.C

applies, but in such a case, the cases under the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 custody may be extended up to 180 days subject

to the satisfaction of the court.

I have perused the C.D and after hearing the submissions

advanced by the learned counsels at Bar, it is an admitted fact that the

accused is in custody for 148 days. Section 43 D of the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 speaks as follows:

“43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2),-

(a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days” respectively; and

(b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:-

“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said

period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days: Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody.”

(3) Section 268 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that –

(a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof – (i) to “the State Government” shall be

construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State Government”,

(ii) to “order of the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “order of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be”, and

(b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof, to “the State Government” shall be construed as a reference to “the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be”.

(4) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing”.

On bare perusal of Section 43D it is understood and clear that

Section 167 Cr.P.C shall apply, however, there is an exception that, in

place of 60 days or 90 days, custody may be given up to 180 days for the

purpose of investigation, provided a report placed before the court by the

Public Prosecutor indicating the detailed progress of the investigation and

prayed for extension of time.

By this instant case, it is also an admitted fact that, no report

has been placed before the court with no reason that, why the mandatory

provision under section 167 Cr.P.C be extended up to 180 days.

Therefore, I am unable to reject the bail application. Accordingly, bail

application is allowed and the accused person is allowed to go on bail for

a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with one surety of the

like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Lower court

concerned with following conditions in case if he is not required in any

other case or cases:

1. The accused person shall appear before the I/O as and

when necessary for the purpose of investigation.

2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Nongstoin without

prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge.

3. He shall not interfere or tamper with the evidence.

4. He shall not intimidate or threat any person or his family

members.

5. He shall be bound to face the trial as and when required.

Court Master to return the C.D to the I/O concerned along with

a copy of this order to the learned State counsel.

With this observation and direction, the bail application is

allowed and stands disposed of.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 112 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. N.M. Mansuri, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel.

The learned counsel for the petitioner intends to file the

rejoinder affidavit prior to hearing.

Both the learned counsels submit that the matter may be

posted for hearing.

List this matter after 2(two) weeks for hearing.

In the meantime, rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 113 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. N.M. Mansuri, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel.

The learned counsel for the petitioner intends to file the

rejoinder affidavit prior to hearing.

Both the learned counsels submit that the matter may be

posted for hearing.

List this matter after 2(two) weeks for hearing.

In the meantime, rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 116 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. N.M. Mansuri, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned State counsel.

The learned counsel for the petitioner intends to file the

rejoinder affidavit prior to hearing.

Both the learned counsels submit that the matter may be

posted for hearing.

List this matter after 2(two) weeks for hearing.

In the meantime, rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 192 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Ms. A.R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. N. Gurung, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and

3 submits that, she needs further 2(two) weeks’ time to file the counter

affidavit.

Prayer is granted as a last chance.

List this matter after 2(two) weeks for counter affidavit by the

respondents No. 2 and 3 and for further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 290 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 291 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 292 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 293 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 294 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 295 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 296 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 297 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for and on

behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, he intends to file the rejoinder

affidavit and prayed 2(two) weeks’ time. Ten days’ time is granted.

List this matter after 10(ten) days for rejoinder affidavit and

further order.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 306 of 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Mr. L. Byrsat, learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as Mr. B.M.R. Chyne, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

Both the learned counsels submit that exchange of pleading is

complete.

Ms. P.S. Nongbri, learned counsel for the KHADC is absent.

List this matter after 2(two) weeks for hearing.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 348 of 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 The matter is fixed today for hearing.

Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Sr. counsel appeared and submits

that the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. R. Mazumdar has informed him that he

is unable to appear before the court to argue the matter as he is suffering

from high fever and prayed that the matter may be fixed after 2(two)

weeks.

List this matter after 2(two) weeks for hearing.

JUDGE

D. Nary

WP(C) No. 369 of 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE, S.R. SEN

21.04.2015 Heard Ms. Q.B. Lamare, learned counsel for the petitioner, who

submits that, she is not prepared with the case today and prayed that

2(two) weeks’ time may be granted to argue the matter, to which Mr. S.

Sen Gupta, learned GA for the State has no objection.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel,

the matter is adjourned.

List this matter after 2(two) weeks for hearing.

JUDGE

D. Nary