Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 01.05.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 1 May, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:350
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA. No. 19 of 2025
Date of Decision: 01.05.2025
Shri. Rohit Kumar,
S/o Shri. Kedar Prasad
R/o Barkat Khan Ka Akhara
Mogalpura, Patna
........Petitioner
- Vs-
The State of Meghalaya
Represented by the Commissioner
& Secretary, Home Department
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong
........Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.M. Suna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Syngkon, GA.
Mr. A.M. Pala, 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. S.M. Suna, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused,
who has submitted that the petitioner/accused was earlier arrested in
1
2025:MLHC:350
connection with Nongpoh P.S. Case No. 48 (4) 2023 under Section
20(b)(ii)/29 NDPS Act, 1985. In course of time, on his application for grant
of bail before the Trial Court vide order dated 28.06.2023, he was granted
bail, albeit, with a direction to abide by the conditions imposed by the court.
Thereafter, the case proceeded with the charge sheet being filed, and the
matter placed before the Trial Court for completion of the trial. The stage of
the case at present is for framing of charge.
2. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner/accused,
being an illiterate person, and not being adequately informed by his counsel
or anyone for that matter, is not aware that his movement was restricted
within the State of Meghalaya. Being a native of Patna city of Bihar, he had
gone back to his native place for pursuing his occupation.
3. However, it is the further submission of the learned counsel that
the petitioner/accused has not failed to appear before the court as and when
called for. It was only on one occasion when the matter was fixed on a
particular date and he came late to the court, giving the explanation that he
was delayed by the late arrival of the train. It was also made known to the
court that he had travelled back and forth from Patna to Shillong, thereby,
has violated one of the bail conditions which states that ‘he shall not leave
the jurisdiction of the State of Meghalaya’.
2
2025:MLHC:350
4. On an application by the prosecution, the court vide order dated
17.03.2025, had cancelled the bail application of the petitioner/accused and
he was remitted to custody.
5. Against his detention in custody, the petitioner/accused had filed
an application for grant of bail and the learned Trial Court vide order dated
27.03.2025, had rejected the prayer made. Hence, this petition.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the
petitioner/accused has no intention to violate any of the conditions of bail as
indicated hereinabove, but due to his lack of knowledge and understanding,
if enlarged on bail, he will ensure that he will abide by any conditions
imposed by this Court.
7. Mr. N. Syngkon, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State
respondent has submitted that the petitioner/accused was arrested in
connection with the alleged transaction of illegal contraband substance
(ganja) and, if enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that he may indulge
in the same activity which would be detrimental to all concerned especially
the society at large. This being the case, it prayed that this Court may not
release the petitioner/accused at this point of time, but to direct him to face
trial till completion of the same.
8. This Court, on consideration of the submission made, and on
3
2025:MLHC:350
perusal of the petition, is made to understand that the petitioner/accused was
initially granted bail in connection with the said case and the trial is in
progress. The only apparent mistake that he made was to go back to his native
place after he was granted bail, thus violating the said condition that ‘he shall
not move beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Meghalaya’. It would have
been proper to detain him, if he had remained outside the State of Meghalaya,
and has failed to cooperate with the trial. However, as has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the petitioner/accused has
never failed to appear before the court as and when called for. This by itself,
is an indication that there is no intention for him to abscond.
9. Under the circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the
prayer of the petitioner/accused made herein. He is therefore directed to be
released on the same conditions as has been imposed in the earlier order for
release by the Trial Court, except for a modification of the said condition No.
4 to now say that ‘he shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior
permission of the court’.
10. With the above noted observations, this petition is accordingly
disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 4
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2025.05.01 18:38:07 IST