Meghalaya High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea Of ACHIK Members In Connection With Violence Case

ACHIK, along with many other non-governmental organisations (NGOs), have been demanding the retrospective implementation of the job roster system as well as the creation of a Winter Capital in the town of Tura.

The three petitioners, all members of ACHIK had sought anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) for their alleged involvement in the incident. The incident had led to injuries to multiple police personnel, damages to vehicles and property, and raised concerns about public safety. They were booked under various provisions of the IPC, Meghalaya (Maintenance of Public Order) Act, Prevention to Damage to Public Property Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Seeking bail in the matter the petitioners contended that they were not involved in the violence and were present as part of a peaceful demonstration that had been granted permission by the Deputy Commissioner. They also argued that there was no prima facie evidence against them and that the charges were being used to curtail their personal liberty.

On the other hand, the State's representatives asserted that the incident qualified as an 'unlawful activity' as defined under section 2(o) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act), and thus the provisions of the UAP Act applied to the case. They cited section 43D(4) of the UAP Act, which explicitly bars the application of section 438 of the Cr.P.C (anticipatory bail) in cases involving offenses punishable under the UAP Act.

Acknowledging the seriousness of the incident and the ongoing investigation a bench of Justice W. Diengdoh stated that due to the explicit bar under section 43D(4) of the UAP Act, the anticipatory bail applications could not be considered.

“Given the fact that section 13 of the UAP Act have been included in the case with section 15(1)(b)/16 sought to be added, the applications under section 438 Cr.P.C preferred by the petitioners have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the UAP Act..when there is an express bar under section 43D(4) of the UAP Act, these applications under section 438 Cr.P.C cannot be maintained”, the bench observed.

Accordingly, the court rejected the anticipatory bail applications and ruled that the matter could not be interfered with at this stage of the investigation.

Case Title: Shri. Labenn Ch Marak Vs. State of Meghalaya

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 30

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment