Shillong, Aug 13: The Meghalaya High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of three alleged instigators of the July 24-mob attack at the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) in Tura, West Garo Hills.

Senior leader of the ACHIK Labenn Ch Marak, ACHIK general secretary Bernita R Marak and Co-Chairman of GHSMC Balkarin Ch Marak have sought for anticipatory bail after an FIR was filed by UBI Bitcing N Marak, Circle Inspector (Sadar), West Garo Hills on July 25.

They were booked under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Meghalaya (Maintenance of Public Order) Act and Prevention to Damage to Public Property Act.

In his common judgment passed on August 11, Justice W. Diengdoh said, “From the contents of the case diary, it is found that the involvement of the petitioners in the case has been referred to by some witnesses, however as to the exact role or involvement of the petitioners in the said incident, the I/O has not been able to detail the same. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the nature of the offence is serious and grave, at this juncture this Court cannot interfere with the process of investigation.”

The order said under the facts and circumstances of what has happened on 24.07.2023 and the consequent registering of the police case, investigation is still going on.

The Court observed that the Investigating Officer (IO), in his wisdom, has thought it fit that the incident apart from being violent in nature, the presence of the Chief Minister and other dignitaries and obviously being the target of the mob’s ire, on being instigated by the petitioners herein and others who have taken part in the said violent action, therefore, a case under the UAP Act, 1967, apart from the penal provisions under the IPC has been made out.

About 18 police, Home Guards and CRPF personnel sustained injuries during the Tura violence incident on July 24, 2023 and about 20 Government and private vehicle were also damaged and burned, with many doors and windows of the CM’s Mini Secretariat in Tura being damaged. Fortunately, the Chief Minister and other Government Officials were unharmed.

So far, 50 people have been arrested for their alleged involvement in the incident.

S. Deb, counsel for the petitioners, had informed the Court that the petitioners are not at all involved in the incident though they were present at the place of occurrence on the said date. He said, in fact, the petitioner Labenn Ch Marak, who is a senior leader of the ACHIK, as well as the petitioner Balkarin Ch Marak, who is the Co -Chairman of GHSMC, and Bernita R Marak, who is the General Secretary of ACHIK, were in the company of the Chief Minister when the incident took place and, as such, they could not have been involved in what happened outside the building.

However, the petitioners came to know from credible sources that it was alleged that they were the ‘actual conspirators’ of the said incident for which reason the police have started looking for them, apparently to arrest them in this connection.

Being apprehensive of the likelihood of arrest, the petitioners have accordingly approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

Deb also stated that apart from the number of offences under the Indian Penal Code, the inclusion of the provision of section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and on prayer by the investigating officer, two days after the filing of these applications, for inclusion of section 15(1)(b)/16 of the said Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the case against the petitioners herein and others was only made to harass the petitioners and to curtail their personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution of India under Article 21.

He further submitted that as far as unlawful assembly is concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioners have taken part in such an assembly when the demonstration that they were part of was conducted peacefully and that too, on being given due permission by the District Administration.

Therefore, there being no prima facie evidence against the petitioners, even if this fact is to be established, if the petitioners have been arrested for which the provision of section 43D(5) and the proviso thereto would be applicable. However, even in an application for grant of anticipatory bail, if no prima facie evidence is found against the petitioners, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest.

On the other hand, the Advocate General said that the magnitude of what has happened on 24.07.2023, especially involving high dignitaries no less than the Chief Minister, such incident would indeed qualify as an ‘unlawful activity’ coming within the definition as found under section 2(o) of the UAP Act.

The punishment for such unlawful activities would therefore be under section 13 of the said Act. Again, such an act has threatened the unity, integrity and security of the State and is also to attempt to cause death of any public functionary, section 15(1)(b)/16 are also justified in their application to the case of the prosecution.

In this backdrop, the applications of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered in view of the bar under section 43D(4) of the UAP Act, 1967, the AG argued.

The AG also referred to the contents of the case diary to say that the investigating officer had affirmatively indicated that the petitioners were very much present on the said day, that is, on 24.07.2023 at the Mini Secretariat building and there are also statements made by witnesses who have stated that they were instigated by the petitioners to protest at the said venue.

Therefore, in view of the above, the AG stated that this is not a fit case for exercise of powers of this Court under section 438 Cr.P.C.