The Meghalaya High Court not only granted bail to State BJP vice president Bernard N. Marak in connection with POCSO charge against him including that his resort in Tura was a brothel but also gave him bail in another charge against him under the Explosives Substances Act 1908.
The two bail orders which were given by Justice Wanlura Diengdoh on September 30 came as a relief to Marak who was arrested in August and booked under Immoral Trafficking Act 1956, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and the Explosives Substances Act 1908.
Police had claimed that during their raid at the Edenbari resort owned by Marak they found in one of the rooms four crossbows, 15 crossbow arrows, 35 Neogel 90 explosives and 100 detonators.
However, Justice Diengdoh in his bail order observed that from the statement of the witnesses and the materials on record, there is “insufficient evidence” to link Marak to the recovery of the explosives, “the fact being that he has stated before the Investigating Officer that he was not present at the place of occurrence (resort) for the last few months or so”.
“The fact that the place of occurrence is a place where a number of persons used to frequent and as such, the plausible explanation that the same may be planted cannot be ruled out at this juncture without any concrete evidence. The fact that the co-accused, particularly the concerned caretaker, has not yet been apprehended goes to show that the version of the accused person as regard to knowledge cannot be believed or disbelieved,” the High Court said.
The court also said that as per Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act it has to be proved that Marak knowingly has in his possession explosive substance, “which is not the case herein and that it was under his control, which is also not yet proved, even prima facie.”
“At this juncture, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused person. It is however qualified that should concrete evidence emerge against the accused person in the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law since the accused person will always be available for questioning at any point of time,” the High Court said.
While ordering for the release of Marak from jail, the High Court also asked him not to abscond or tamper with the evidence, not to leave the jurisdiction of India without the prior permission of the Investigating Officer or the court and that he should cooperate with the investigation as and when required.
The court also directed him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with two solvent sureties of similar amount to the satisfaction of the court.
