High Court of Meghalaya
Smti. Graceful I. Iangrai vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 7 December, 2022
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA No. 22 of 2022 Date of Decision: 07.12.2022
Smti. Graceful I. Iangrai Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. R. Colney, GA
Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Oral:
1. This is an application under Section 439 CrPC, praying for
grant of Bail to the accused person, Shri. Gabriel K. Iangrai, in connection
with CID case No. 1 (10) 2022 under Section 13(1) (a) (b) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act R/w Section 120 (B)/409/420/468/471/477
IPC.
2. The brief facts are that, the accused person, an Officer in the
Meghalaya Police Service, was arrested on 02.11.2022, on an FIR lodged
by one, Shri. Darwin Sangma on 28.10.2022, before the CID, Police
Station, Meghalaya, wherein it has been alleged that the accused person
has misappropriated funds sanctioned for construction of the NERS
Building at Shillong. The accused was remanded to police custody for
7(seven) days on 05.11.2022, and since 12.11.2022, has been kept in
judicial custody. As the Bail Application of the accused, being Bail
Application No. 255(H) 2022 in CID PS Case No. 01(10) 2022 was
rejected by the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Shillong by order dated
30.11.2022, the accused through the petitioner, who is his sister, is before
this Court, by way of the instant Bail Application.
3. Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that, in the course of investigation, the properties of the accused person
have been raided and documents, electronic devices and other assets and
articles pertaining to the case, have all been seized. He submits that, as all
these materials have been seized, and the accused already examined, no
further purpose will be served by keeping the accused in judicial custody.
He also submits that, since the accused has been in judicial custody, no
further statements have been taken from him by the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel submits that the accused is a patient of hypertension and
other ailments, and any further custody will have a severe impact on his
health, and in the event, Bail is granted, the accused will comply with all
conditions, as may be laid down by this Court.
4. The learned counsel in support of his submissions, has placed
strong reliance on the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2022(11) SCALE 114, to urge
the point that, Bail is the rule, and that any imprisonment before
conviction has a punitive content and Courts should not refuse Bail to an
unconvicted person.
5. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG on behalf of the respondents as
per directions of this Court, by order dated 05.12.2022, has produced the
Case Diary and apprised the Court by way of a report, of the status of
investigation. He submits that, the investigation is still going on and 6(six)
persons have since been examined, and their statements recorded under
Section 161 CrPC. He submits that, other witnesses, who are junior to the
accused person are yet to be examined, and as the accused person is a
senior police officer, there is every possibility, if he is enlarged on Bail,
will be in a position to influence these witnesses, who are yet to be
examined. The learned AAG has flagged the relevant pages in the Case
Diary, containing the statements of the witnesses, who have been
examined. He submits that at this stage, it would be detrimental to the
investigation, if Bail is granted.
6. The learned AAG has also placed two rulings, to support his
case, that is, in the cases of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal & Anr. vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 4 SCC 642 and Subramanian
Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 682.
7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties, and examined the
Case Diary and the report of the progress of investigation. It is worthwhile
to note that, the report notes that the documents seized are yet to be
analysed, as the same are voluminous, running into thousand of pages, and
that on scrutiny of some of the documents it has been found that, official
documents which were not supposed to be in the personal custody of the
accused person, were seized from his possession. It is further noted in the
report that, from the NERS file, many documents are missing. It is further
stated in the report that, the accused person possessed a number of bank
accounts and also properties, which are disproportionate to his income.
8. It is also mentioned in the report that, several witnesses are yet
to be examined, and that during the further course of investigation, there
is every likelihood that the documents relevant to the case, may be
retrieved from other witnesses, which may lead to other arrest of
accomplices involved in the case. Though these aspects as mentioned
above deserve consideration, however the fact that the accused is a high-
ranking police official, with considerable influence, is a factor that cannot
be ignored by this Court, while considering this Bail Application.
9. Though there is no quarrel that Bail is the rule and that a person
should not be kept in custody, as a punitive measure, in the considered
view of the Court, taking into account the peculiarity of the case and the
possibility of the accused using his influence to hamper the investigation,
which is still under active progress, notwithstanding the health condition
of the accused, this Bail Application stands rejected at this stage.
10. As ordered above, this matter stands disposed of.
11. Case Diary to be returned back immediately to the learned
AAG.
Judge
Meghalaya
07.12.2022
"D.Thabah-PS"
