Men sentenced for “breach of public order and tranquillity”

Nim Dorji  | Trongsa

Bumthang district court sentenced a man from Dagana to a concurrent prison term of 27 months for violating the government’s directive to close shop at 7pm last week.

He is a repeat offender, previously convicted for trespassing and harassment.

He was handed an eleven-month prison term for breach of public order and tranquillity and the two-year-three-month for harassing.

Police apprehended the men drunk and shouting near a private residence at Gongkhar at around 10.50pm on May 5.

The defendant submitted to the court that he went to collect his citizenship identity card and driving license, and shouted under the influence of alcohol.

He admitted to the charges and pleaded the court to acquit him. He said that he won’t repeat such an act in the future.

However, as he has breached the governments directive and being a repeat offender, the court sentenced him to 27 months in prison.

The government on April 14 announced all businesses to close by 7pm to reduce the risk of community transmission and avoid mass gathering.

Meanwhile, in a similar case, two customers and a shopkeeper were also charged for breaching the directive.

The police intercepted three of them drinking in a shop near Jambay Lhakhang.

The shopkeeper submitted to the court that the two men were hired that day to construct a cowshed. Since the work was incomplete he asked them to stay at his place to continue the work the next day.

He said that his shop and residence were together and he doesn’t sell alcohol. He bought alcohol from another shop and closed his shop at 6.30pm.

The shopkeeper told the court that the police knocked on the door and came in and found them in the kitchen where three of them were drinking after dinner.

The court acquitted the three of them stating there was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the fourth incident reported in Bumthang court after the government issued the directive.

The court acquitted them, stating the charges could not satisfy the court.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply