Tankeswar Deka vs. State Of Meghalaya

Held

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, Shri Tankeswar Deka. The decision was based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing a surety bond and personal bond of ₹25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial). Conditions were imposed, including making himself available for interrogation, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and not leaving the country without prior court permission. The pre-arrest bail was confirmed, and the application was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Tankeswar Deka, sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under various sections of the IPC, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and the Meghalaya Forest (Removal of Timber) Act. The FIR concerned a truck loaded with saw timbers. The driver stated the timbers were from Mairang village, with a Transit Pass procured from M/S Mamata Veneer Products. Investigations revealed M/S Mamata Veneer Products was functioning and possessed a GST Registration Certificate. The petitioner was named by an individual working in an adjacent Saw Mill. The petitioner claims no proprietorship or connection to M/S Mamata Veneer Products, other than occasional dealings. His prior application for pre-arrest bail was declined by the trial court. The High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and stayed his arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of involvement in the illegal transportation of saw timbers and potential damage to public property. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he is not connected with M/S Mamata Veneer Products, from whom the Transit Pass was allegedly procured, and his dealings were not regular. He emphasized his cooperation with the investigation and his willingness to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. He also highlighted that his previous application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the trial court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or revenue. However, the registration of the FIR and the ongoing investigation imply the State's position is against granting pre-arrest bail without further scrutiny.