-Accused used false death certificate for abatement in prior offence
-HC Kohima Bench rejects bail application
Morung Express News
Kohima | July 23
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench, on July 23, heard a curious case. It involved a bail applicant, who had previously managed to get a criminal case against him ‘abated’ (closing of a legal proceeding) by producing a death certificate.
Unfortunately, for him, he was found alive when he was arrested in another case.
On Tuesday, the accused filed a bail plea, seeking release, under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) along with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, before the court.
As per the Court’s record, the petitioner, P Malingpam was arrested for a drug offence, which was registered by the Narcotic Cell Police Station, in 2019, under section 21(b) of the NDPS Act.
The petitioner had previously moved three bail applications at the court of the Special Judge, NDPS, Kohima, but the bail applications were rejected. The third was on June 20.
In the latest bail plea filed, before the Kohima Bench, he sought release on the ground that he needed to attend to his ailing wife, who reportedly was scheduled to undergo surgery. His plea was however rejected by the court.
Hearing his plea, Justice Budi Habung noted, “It appears that the learned trial Court has considered all the grounds taken by the petitioner and after considering the records and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner had rejected the bail applications...” Justice Habung also noted the petitioner’s abatement in a previous/another case “on production of death certificate.”
The abated case against him was reopened by the police, who found him alive and involved in another case. Justice Habung also noted the trial court rejecting his earlier bail plea on grounds that there was high chance of the accused (petitioner) jumping bail again.
During the hearing on July 23, the Public Prosecutor (PP) opposed the bail application submitting that prima facie there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner and his involvement “in the present case.” The PP argued that the petitioner was once abated on production of a false death certificate.
Considering the charges and evidence against the petitioner, Justice Habung noted, that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of bail. “In view of the observation made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected,” Justice Habung ruled.
Further, during the oral proceedings of the case, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the ‘death certificate’ was submitted by an earlier counsel of the earlier case without the knowledge of the accused.
