TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m which the 13th Assam Rifles intercepted 32 packets of contraband Ganja weighing 644 Kgs (Gross.) On 26-6-06 two tribal persons hired the aforesaid two jeeps through the All Manipur Jeep Owners Association, to transport some grocery items from Imphal to Ringui Village. Ukhrul District, Manipur. The owner of the aforesaid quantity of Ganja are (i) Banison and (ii) Mahal of Ringui village, who hired the vehicle. Petitioner's son along with another person. Thokchom Somi Singh, on good faith, proceeded towards Ringui Village. After reaching Ringui Village, said Banison and Mahai requested the petitioner's son, Laishram Surajkumar Singh and Thokchom Somi Singh, to transport some of their grocery articles, which were said to be ginger and chilli, from Ringui village up to Phungcham village and accordingly they proceeded further towards Phungcham Village, and on the way to the said Phungcham Village, 13th A.R. personnel detained the said vehicles and intercepted the aforesaid quantities of Ganja from the vehicles. They were arrested and produced before the Special Court, ND PS on 1-10-06 and since then the accused Laishram Surajkumar Singh has been in judicial custody. It is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner, not being the owner of the aforesaid contraband Ganja, Court can safely come to the presumption that he is no way involved with the alleged offence and as he is not involved, the Court can easily give a finding that the son of the petitioner is not guilty of such an offence for which he was arrested, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and the petitioner's son will be available at the time of trial and he will not commit any offence while on bail. Another leg of his argument is that the investigating agency of the NCB has already submitted charge sheet (final complaint) and at present there is no possibility of tampering the witnesses and/or absconding from trial. Hence, Court may enlarge him on bail with any condition. He also submits that the accused is in judicial custody for 181 days as on today, i.e. 26-3-2007. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohendro relied on an order of this Court passed in Bail Application No. 1 of 2007 as well as Cri. Misc. Case No. 80 of 2006 of the Court of the learned Special Judge, ND and PS, Manipur. 6. The learned special P.P. of the N.C.B., Mr. N. Brojendro, raises objection to the prayer for bail stating that the accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke other cases of penal offences subject to limitation placed by Section 37(b)(ii)(c) of the Act, which commences with non obstante clause and unless the Court is satisfied with the submission of the parties as well as from perusal of the records to the effect that the P.P. is given an opportunity for making the objection and after getting an opportunity even he opposes the application, the Court has to come to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit offence while on bail then only the Court can grant bail. Without giving any specific finding that the accused is not guilty of the offence for which he is arrested, Court cannot grant bail as the son of the petitioner, namely, Laishram Surajkumar Singh, i.e. the accused, was detained along with the contraband articles (Ganja) and, while charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Agency against the said accused, it is not possible for this Court to come to a conclusion that the accused son of the petitioner is not guilty of the offence, for which his son was arrested and charge sheet is filed at this stage. 8. The scheme of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) . . . (ii) . . . Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in Clause (i) or Clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. 10. Order of this Court in bail application No. 1 of 2007 has no application in the present case as this Court passed the order in the aforesaid bail application considering the relevant facts and the conditions of the accused in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2006, which is not at par with the present case, particularly, in the aforesaid application No. 1 of 2007 this Court granted bail considering the facts that the owner of the truck as well as the owner of the contraband drug were absconding and there was no scope for commencing of the early trial of that case and not for any other ground. It is to be mentioned here that the apex Court in a catena of decisions held that mere detention in custody for a period of six months is not a valid ground to release an accused on bail in a crime of this nature. The liberty of a person is not above the liberty of the Society at large particularly when the alleged offence is against the Society, though Mr. Mohendro places reliance on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
