Court dismisses Jhalajit's bail plea
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, March 02 2017: District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West has dismissed the anticipatory bail filed by CO 2nd IRB, Dr Ak Jhalajit, in connection with the July 23 BT Road firing case. The interim bail granted by the Court on February 16 stands vacated.

The order was passed by the Court today after submission by counsel of the petitioner and CBI counsel.

The Court had fixed March 2 for objection report with the case diary if any returnable for report and hearing.

The hearing was held under Cril Misc (AB) case number 34 of 2017 ref (i) RC (1) S/2010 Imphal under Section 302, 34 IPC and 27 Arms Act and (II) RC 2 (S)/2010 Imphal under Section 302, 326, 307, 506 IPC Section 17/20 of UA (P) Act and Section 25 (1-B) of Arms Act.

Dr Ak Jhalajit the then Additional SP Imphal West was represented by his counsel Chandrajit Sharma and Lakhikanta Singh while CBI was represented by senior PP CBI Atul Kumar and P Ibomcha.

CBI raised objection to the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner pleading to release him under Section 438 CrPC.

Counsel of the petitioner stated that the trial with regard to the killing of Chungkham Sanjit and Rabina has been going on before the Court.

He submitted that the trial of examination of the prosecution witnesses and during the pendency of the case trial one of the accused Th Herojit confessed before the media that he killed Sanjit on orders of Dr Ak Jhalajit the petitioner.

He stated that on December 28 of last year, Sanjit's mother Taratombi requested CBI to reopen the case and thereafter the investigation agency approached the Court seeking permission for further investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC which were recently allowed by the Court.

The counsel further submitted that the petitioner had appeared before the CBI to answer certain questions relating to the case on February 15 as per a summon served on him after which the petitioner received another summon to appear at Delhi CGO complex on February 17 within a short period of time.

He argued that from the steps taken up by the CBI every prudent person will assume that the investigation agency is going to cause arrest of the petitioner by calling him at Delhi.

The present reinvestigation has been initiated on the extra judicial confession made by Th Herojit but extra judicial confession is very weak evidence and such confession has to be looked into with great care and caution and no person can be assumed to be involved in an offence on the basis of sole and mere extra judicial confession, the counsel stated.

Claiming that the petitioner is being hospitalised at RIMS Hospital and he will cooperate in the investigation as and when his health conditions improve, the counsel prayed for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioner and also cited a case law in support of the submission.

After hearing submission of the counsels of both sides, the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to grant pre arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition was dismissed and the interim bail granted by the Court on February 16 stands vacated and the petition was disposed.

Comment