Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 25.03.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya on 25 March, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:278
Serial No. 03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
AB No. 22 of 2025
Date of Decision: 25.03.2026
Shri. Ha Doji
S/o Shri. Ha Tato
Permanent resident of Ganga market,
Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh
Presently a student of Law College
Shillong, Dhankheti, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya
........ Petitioner
- Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya
Through the Secretary Home Police Department,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. Officer-in-Charge,
Laban Police Station,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. Smti. X (Complainant)
Through the Officer-in-Charge,
Laban Police Station,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
......... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Page 1 of 6
2026:MLHC:278
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, Adv.
Ms. G.C. Marboh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : 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. When this matter was called up, Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA has
submitted that, the complainant/victim has been informed that she can appear
before this Court either by engaging a private counsel or by resorting to legal
aid. However, even when contacted on two occasions, she has failed to avail
any of the options given to her.
2. In such circumstances, this Court would deem it fit to say that the
complainant is not agreeable to appear before this Court. Be that as it may, it
would be incumbent upon the State respondent to present the case of the
persecution herein.
3. Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has
submitted that this is a case where a celebration had taken place, the
complainant, as well as the petitioner and others being present at such
celebratory event on 19th November, 2025 at the Arunachal Boys Hostel,
Shillong.
Page 2 of 6
2026:MLHC:278
4. According to the complainant, in course of such celebration, strong
drinks was consumed, as a result of which, she became drunk and had
retreated to a room to sleep there. Admittedly, the room was dark and in
course of the night, she was sexually assaulted, this was known to her only
when she woke up in the morning. However, she could identify the
perpetrator from the sound of his voice, after which she has lodged the said
FIR.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner
herein was impleaded in the said case, and being apprehensive of an
imminent arrest has accordingly approached the Trial Court with a prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected vide order dated 8 th December,
2025. Thereafter, he is now come before this Court with this instant
application making a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is a law
student and is not involved in the alleged sexual assault on the said victim,
and, if arrested, his reputation and career will be at stake.
7. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that, in the meantime,
the chargesheet has been filed by the Investigating (I/O), wherein, it was said
that there is found prima facie evidence against the petitioner linking his
involvement to the said assault.
8. Even so, filing of the chargesheet would not be an impediment for grant
of anticipatory bail, submits the learned counsel and, in this regard, the case
of Bharat Chaudhary and Anr v. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 77, at Para 7 has been referred to, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as follows:
Page 3 of 6
2026:MLHC:278
“7. From the perusal of this part of Section 438 of CrPC, we find no
restriction in regard to exercise of this power in a suitable case either
by the Court of Session, High Court or this Court even when cognizance
is taken or a charge-sheet is filed. The object of Section 438 is to prevent
undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and
detention. The fact, that a court has either taken cognizance of the
complaint or the investigating agency has filed a charge-sheet, would
not by itself, in our opinion, prevent the courts concerned from granting
anticipatory bail in appropriate cases. The gravity of the offence is an
important factor to be taken into consideration while granting such
anticipatory bail so also the need for custodial interrogation, but these
are only factors that must be borne in mind by the courts concerned
while entertaining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact
of taking cognizance or filing of a charge-sheet cannot by itself be
construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. In our
opinion, the courts i.e. the Court of Session, High Court or this Court
has the necessary power vested in them to grant anticipatory bail in non-
bailable offences under Section 438 of CrPC even when cognizance is
taken or a charge-sheet is filed provided the facts of the case require the
court to do so.”
9. In view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is
prayed that this petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be granted
anticipatory bail with any conditions imposed by this Court, to which he will
abide and comply with.
10. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA has opposed the prayer and submission
made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that, there is clear evidence
of the involvement of the petitioner herein as far as the complaint of the
victim is concerned, and even in his statement before the I/O, the petitioner
has admitted to have had sexual intercourse with the victim, though he would
say that such act was one of consent, which contention was denied by the
Page 4 of 6
2026:MLHC:278
victim. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that this petition may not be
allowed.
11. This Court, on consideration of the submission of the parties, at this
point of time, without going into the merits of the case of the prosecution,
inasmuch as, since the chargesheet has been filed, evidence has been
gathered and the same to be placed before the Trial Court for consideration,
as has been submitted by the learned GA, another set of chargesheet to be
filed, therefore, it can be assumed that the stage of investigation is complete.
12. Though the allegation is serious in nature, however, it would be
incumbent upon the prosecution to make out a case against the petitioner, for
which he should face his trial with proper defence, as such, in view of the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case of Bharat
Chaudhary (supra), this Court is inclined to allow this petition.
13. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner 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;
iv) That he shall have no contact or shall not come into contact with
the victim at any point of time, except, if so, directed by the Trial
Court; andPage 5 of 6
2026:MLHC:278
v) That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
14. Petition is disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
25.03.2026
“Khraw”
Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 6
Digitally signed by
KHRAWDAPBOR
BUHPHANG
Date: 2026.03.25 21:03:50 IST
