Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 3103 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010124462022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./1498/2022

            DIPAL JIT LANGTHASA @ DAORAJA DIMASA AND 3 ORS
            S/O- SRI SOROMUNI LANGTHASA, R/O- VILL.- KHEPRE-1, P.S. AND P.O.
            MAIBONG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM

            2: NOBAJIT HOJAI @ NAGA HOJAI DIMASA
             S/O- POROJEN HOJAI
             R/O- VILL.- DIMAINO
             P.O. AND P.S. DIHANGI
             DIST. DIMA HASAO
            ASSAM

            3: JUDDYCHAN HAFLONGBER @ AMERIKA DIMASA
             S/O- BIJULAL HAFLONGBAR
             R/O- VILL.- DAMADIHAWAR
             P.O. AND P..S MAIBONG
             DIST. DIMA HASAO
            ASSAM

            4: PRITHOMJIT JIDUNG @ GALAO DIMASA
             S/O- SRI AJIT JIDUNG
             R/O- VILL.- GALAPANG
             P.O. AND P.S MAIBONG
             DIST. DIMA HASAO
            ASSA

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S BORTHAKUR
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                          ORDER

Date : 22.08.2022

Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Bankim Sarma, learned APP who has opposed the prayer for bail.

2. The petitioners, namely, (1) Dipal Jit Langthasa @ Daoraja Dimasa, (2) Nobajit Hojai @ Naga Hojai Dimasa, (3) Juddychan Haflongber @ Amerika Dimasa and (4) Prithomjit Jidung @ Galao Dimasa, who were arrested on 07.12.2021 in connection with Session Case No.05/2022 in connection with G.R. No. 271/2021 arising out of Langting P.S. Case No.33/2021 under sections 120(B)/457/365/ 325/302 IPC are seeking regular bail by filing this application under section 439 Cr.P.C.

3. It appears that upon submission of the charge sheet in the case, the learned CJM, Dima Hasao, Halflong had committed the case for trial before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Halflong and accordingly the said case is being tried as Sessions Case no.05/2022.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to various paragraphs of the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, has submitted that the purpose of bail is to secure appearance of the accused persons in their trial by reasonable amount of bail and that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Hence, it is submitted that the Page No.# 3/6

deprivation of liberty must be construed to the punishment. It is submitted that the Supreme Court of India had deplicated the practice of incarceration of accused in jail without the liberty of bail and it is submitted that time and again it has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception because it puts fetter to the personal liberty of the individual which is otherwise guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is also submitted that as charge-sheet has been submitted, further custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioners be granted bail on stringent conditions.

6. Considered the objection to the grant of bail made by the learned APP.

7. At the outset para-21, 27 and 46 of the case of Sanjay Chandra are quoted below:

21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention Page No.# 4/6

being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, this Court opined:

"2. The basic rule may perhaps betersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight."

46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the Page No.# 5/6

appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

8. On a perusal of the scanned copy of the case records of Sessions Case no. 05/2022, it is seen that all the 4(four) petitioners herein are members of Dima National Liberation Army (DNLA in short). The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said organization has entered into a cease- fire agreement with the appropriate Government and the cadres of the DNLA are now residing in the designated camps at Kashmaipur.

9. From the investigation carried out so far, it appears that the petitioners are charged of having kidnapped 6(six) persons by forcefully entering into their houses with two vehicles and they were brought to the DNLA designated camps and were severely tortured. Four persons were found in the designated camps in a seriously/grievously injured condition and were sent by the police to the Haflong Civil Hospital for treatment and two of the kidnapped persons had succumbed to their injuries.

10. As the petitioners have association with an armed terrorist origination, the Court is of the considered opinion that release of the petitioners at this stage would be hamper fair trial as the petitioners are active members of the DNLA, and if they are granted bail, they would dissuade the witnesses to depose against them, and no one may like to depose against members of terrorist organization, while they are on bail, because after the cease-fire agreement such members are normally entitled to keep arms.

11. The case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) was decided on the backdrop of economic offence committed by the accused. But in the present case in hand, Page No.# 6/6

the petitioners are projected to be active members of a terrorist organization, which although had entered into a cease-fire agreement with the appropriate government, but were involved in kidnapping and causing grievous injuries by forcefully entering into their houses. Therefore, in the present case, the consideration would be different from consideration relevant for persons who had committed economic offence.

12. Therefore, in the present case in hand, having noted that in the designated camps, four persons have been recovered with grievous injuries and two of the kidnapped persons has already been killed, the Court does not find this as a fit case to release the petitioners, namely, (1) Dipal Jit Langthasa @ Daoraja Dimasa, (2) Nobajit Hojai @ Naga Hojai Dimasa, (3) Juddychan Haflongber @ Amerika Dimasa and (4) Prithomjit Jidung @ Galao Dimasa, on bail pending trial even on stringent conditions.

13. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant