01.04.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By Its on 1 April, 2026

    0
    36
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Meghalaya High Court

    Date Of Decision: 01.04.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By Its on 1 April, 2026

    Author: W. Diengdoh

    Bench: W. Diengdoh

                                                                              2026:MLHC:291
    
    
    
    Serial No. 06
    Regular List
    
    
    
    
                              HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                    AT SHILLONG
    
    
    AB. No. 1 of 2026
                                                                 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026
    Shri Spelmon Shillangam,
    Son of Shri. Biranius Chadong,
    Resident of Lakadong Ummat,
    East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
                                                                         ........ Petitioner
                                              - Vs-
    1.     State of Meghalaya represented by its
           Secretary, Home Police Department,
           Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong.
    
    2.     Officer-in-Charge,
           Ladrymbai Police Outpost,
           East Jaintia Hills District,
           Meghalaya.
    
    3.     Officer-in-Charge,
           Khliehriat Police Station,
           East Jaintia Hills District,
           Meghalaya.
                                                                        ......... Respondents
    Coram:
                    Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
    
    Appearance:
    For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)       :           Mr. Th. Rakesh Singh, Adv. with
                                                      Ms. R. Fancon, Adv.
                                                      Ms. M. Marak, Adv.
    
    
                                                      1
                                                                      2026:MLHC:291
    
    
    
    
    For the Respondent(s)            :      Mrs. N.G. Shylla, Sr. GA with
                                            Mr. H. Abraham, GA
    i)    Whether approved for reporting in                     Yes/No
          Law journals etc.:
    
    ii)   Whether approved for publication
          in press:                                             Yes/No
    
    
                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

    1. Heard Mr. Th. Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for the

    petitioner/accused, who has submitted that an FIR was lodged on 03.03.2026

    SPONSORED

    before the Officer-in-Charge, Ladrymbai Police Outpost, Ladrymbai by one

    Shri. Dawanoo Rymbai, the contents of such information being that, on the said

    date, there was a spot inspection of a disputed land between two villages i.e.

    Lama Village and Lakadong Ummat Village in East Jaintia Hills District,

    wherein, the residents of both villages have gathered at the said place of

    inspection. In the midst of such inspection, it was alleged that the

    petitioner/accused along with others present were armed with firearms, and

    ultimately, had opened fire on the gathering, as a result of which, three villagers

    of Lama Village were seriously injured.

    2. Accordingly, on receipt of such information, an FIR was filed and a

    case was registered being Khliehriat P.S. Case No. 104 of 2026 under Section

    109 BNS, 2023.

    2

    2026:MLHC:291

    3. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner/accused was not

    present when the said incident had taken place, since on the said date i.e.

    03.03.2026, he was attending to his ailing mother at Woodland Hospital,

    Nangbah, West Jaintia Hills District, and also on the said date, he had visited a

    doctor for his personal treatment, for which medical prescription was issued to

    him, the same being annexed as Annexure-4 in this petition. However, the

    learned counsel would submit that, the allegation that some of the eye-witnesses

    had seen him at the place of occurrence on the said date of incident, is not correct.

    4. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, because of the

    fact that he was said to be involved in the said incident, therefore, the police are

    on the lookout to arrest him, hence the apprehension of imminent arrest.

    5. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner/accused,

    being a school teacher with a strong societal standing, if arrested, his reputation

    would suffer which will cause prejudice to him. He therefore submits that the

    petitioner/accused, if released on bail, will abide by any conditions that this

    Court may impose. It is also submitted that the petitioner/accused on interim bail

    being granted to him by this Court, as directed, had appeared before the

    Investigating Officer on two occasions, and his statement was recorded.

    6. Per contra, Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. H.

    Abraham, learned GA appearing for the State respondent, has strongly opposed

    the prayer made, and has contended that the investigation carried out by the

    3
    2026:MLHC:291

    Investigating Officer as far as the petitioner/accused is concerned, would

    confirm that his plea of alibi cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, on being directed

    by this Court to make a detailed inquiry on this aspect of the matter, the

    Investigating Officer has filed the status report dated 01.04.2026 before this

    Court today, the same is brought on record and marked as Annexure-X. It has

    been stated that the Investigating Officer, had visited the said doctor, who has

    allegedly treated the petitioner/accused, and who is said to have issued the said

    medical prescription. However, the Investigating Officer has found out that the

    said doctor i.e. Dr. Dapmi Hinge does not run any private clinic at Jowai, since

    he has visited the doctor at Nangbah Primary Health Centre (PHC), West Jaintia

    Hills District, which is at a considerable distance from Jowai. This doctor has

    however stated that, though, he could not clearly recollect the exact date, but he

    did mention that on one morning, the petitioner/accused had come to his official

    quarters at PHC, West Jaintia Hills District complaining of a common illness,

    and accordingly, he had prescribed some medicines.

    7. This being the case, the learned Sr. GA submits that the claim of the

    petitioner/accused is unfounded, and since, false information has been given by

    him, he is therefore not entitled to any relief by this Court. She therefore prays

    that this petition may be dismissed as devoid of merits.

    8. This Court, on consideration of the submission made on the facts

    stated hereinabove, is made to understand that an incident has taken place on

    4
    2026:MLHC:291

    03.03.2026, wherein, there was some altercation and commotion between two

    rival parties, resulting in firing and gunshots in which some persons are said to

    have been injured.

    9. From the materials on record, it is also noted that some of the eye-

    witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence, had given their statement

    to the police and have named some of those who are present in the said gathering,

    and who are also responsible for the said incident, the petitioner/accused herein

    being one of such named persons.

    10. This Court, on perusal of the offence alleged to have been committed

    by the perpetrators, has also noted that the sections of law involved are serious

    in nature, one of which involves an attempt to murder, the punishment of which

    being life imprisonment.

    11. It is also submitted at the bar that the investigation is still ongoing

    and the charge sheet have not yet been filed.

    12. On perusal of the said status report filed by the Investigating Officer,

    it is found mentioned that the said doctor does not run any private clinic at Jowai,

    and this fact was also affirmed by the learned Sr. GA, the learned counsel for the

    petitioner/accused has however countered by stating that the clinic run by the

    said doctor, is actually situated at Nangbah, a place which is located at some

    distance from Jowai. The fact that the said doctor has also acknowledged having

    5
    2026:MLHC:291

    examined or rather treated the petitioner/accused at his official quarters i.e. at

    Nangbah has also been noted by the Investigating Officer.

    13. Under such circumstances, this Court would not be in a position to

    either affirmed or to discard the contents of whether the plea of alibi is well-

    founded or not. It would eventually be a matter of evidence in course of trial.

    14. Be that as it may, since the petitioner/accused has already made

    himself available for questioning by the Investigating Officer, and considering

    the fact that he is a school teacher by profession having some standing in the

    society, coupled with the fact that there is reasonable apprehension of his

    imminent arrest, notwithstanding the findings of the investigation, at this point

    of time, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner/accused.

    15. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner/accused is

    directed to be released on bail on the following conditions:

    i) That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence or

    witnesses;

    ii) That he shall attend court as and when called for;

    iii) That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Meghalaya, except

    with due permission of the court concerned; and

    iv) That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 30,000/-

    (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the

    6
    2026:MLHC:291

    satisfaction of the Trial Court.

    16. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly. No

    Costs.

    Judge

    Signature Not Verified 7
    Digitally signed by
    DARIKORDOR NARY
    Date: 2026.04.01 21:40:17 IST



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here