Meghalaya High Court
Shri Gopal Krishan Gour vs State Of Meghalaya on 21 February, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:102
Serial Nos. 01 & 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.Rev.P. No. 15 of 2025 with
BA No.1 of 2026
Date of Decision: 21.02.2026
In Crl.Rev.P. No. 15 of 2025
1. Shri Gopal Krishan Gour
Son of (L) Moti Lal Gour,
Resident of 7/144, Vidyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302039.
2. Shri Rahul Gour,
Son of Gopal Krishan Gour,
Resident of 7/144, Vidyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302039.
All petitioners represented by
Shri Suraj Kumar, (Power of Attorney Holder)
Son of Diwani Ram, Resident of Pithoragarh, Bilai,
Uttarakhand - 262520.
..... Petitioners
- Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary,
Home Police Department,
Government of Meghalaya.
2. The Director General of Police,
Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong, Meghalaya.
3. The Investigating Officer UBSI,
Shri Pyniarlang Thabah.
.... Respondents
1
2026:MLHC:102
In BA No. 1 of 2026
Shri Gopal Krishan Gour
Son of (L) Moti Lal Gour,
R/o Rukmani Jewellers (P) Ltd,
Central Soine Rd. Sector-2,
Central Spince, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur Rajasthan-302039.
Represented by his attornee
Shri Suraj Kumar,
S/o Shri Diwani Ram
R/o Pithoragarh, Bilai,
Uttarakhand – 262520
….. Petitioner
– Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented by its Secretary,
Home Police Department,
Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Ri-Bhoi District,
Nongpoh, Meghalaya
3. Office In-Charge,
Khanapara Police Station,
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya.
4. Shri. Pyniarlang Thabah
The Investigating Officer (I/O)
Khanapara Police Station,
Ri-Bhoi, District,
Meghalaya.
…. Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
2
2026:MLHC:102
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/NoAppearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S. Panthi, Adv.
Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv.
Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv.
Mr. S. Chanda, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA.
COMMON JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. The case of the petitioner Gopal Krishan Gour is that he along with
Shri Rahul Gour has been implicated in a number of criminal cases instituted
within the State of Meghalaya, as a result of which many FIRs have been
lodged accusing the petitioners herein of being involved in many offences
concerning financial irregularities, fraud, forgery etc.
2. One such FIR was filed at Khanapara Police Station under Ri-Bhoi
District, registered as Khanapara P.S Case No. 25 (07) 2024, prompting the
petitioners to apply for grant of anticipatory bail, firstly, from the Trial Court
which was rejected vide order dated 27.09.2024 and later on, this Court being
approach with similar prayer, the said prayer was also rejected vide order
dated 03.03.2025.
3. The petitioners have then approached the Supreme Court by way
3
2026:MLHC:102of an SLP, i.e., SLP (Crl.) No. 3615 and 3588 of 2025 and by respective orders
dated 21.04.2025 and another dated 29.04.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had granted the prayer of the petitioner and they are allowed to go on bail in
the event of their arrest. However, there is a condition imposed that stipulated
that in case the petitioners failed to cooperate in the investigation, the State is
at liberty to move the Trial Court for cancellation of the said anticipatory bail
granted.
4. In due course, the prosecution through the Investigating Officer,
Khanapara Police Station, had preferred an application being Criminal Misc.
Case No. 5 of 2025 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ri-
Bhoi District, Nongpoh, with a prayer for cancellation of the bail granted to
the petitioner Shri Gopal Krishan Gour. The learned CJM, upon hearing the
parties vide order dated 15.12.2025, allowed the prayer made, and
accordingly, the bail granted to the petitioner, Shri Gopal Krishan Gour was
cancelled vide order dated 23.10.2025 with a further direction that he is to be
arrested and taken into custody in accordance with law.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.12.2025, the petitioners
have moved this Court by way a Criminal Revision Petition, registered as
Crl.Rev.P. No. 15 of 2025, inter alia, with a prayer to set aside and quash the
said impugned order.
4
2026:MLHC:102
6. In the meantime, during the pendency of hearing of the said
application to set aside and quash the order dated 15.12.2025, the petitioner
Gopal Krishan Gour, on 27.01.2025, while travelling from Rajasthan to
Guwahati for appearing in Araimile P.S Case No. 25 of 2024, apparently in
compliance with the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLP(Crl.) No. 15504 of 2025, whereby the petitioner was required to appear
before the Investigating Officer on 29.01.2026 at 11:00 AM, he was however
accosted by CISF personnel at the Guwahati International Airport and was
accordingly arrested.
7. On the said petitioner being arrested, he has filed 2 (two) bail
applications, one dated 28.01.2026 before the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nongpoh, which application was rejected vide order
dated 28.01.2026. Another bail application was moved before the Court of the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Nongpoh on 29.01.2026 and the same
was also rejected vide order dated 05.02.2026. Now, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing another bail application being BA No. 1 of
2026 with a prayer for grant of bail on account of his being arrested in
connection with Khanapara P.S Case No. 25 (07) of 2024 under Sections
381/408/120B/417/418/420/34 IPC.
8. This Court having on board, both the Criminal Revision Petition
5
2026:MLHC:102
and the Bail application made on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Gopal Krishan
Gour, the subject matter being interlinked, would deem appropriate and
convenient to take up both applications for hearing and to pass a common
judgment and order.
9. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Sr. counsel along with Mr. S. Panthi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the manner in which
the petitioner, Gopal Krishan Gour was arrested, was in flagrant violation of
the known procedure in criminal jurisprudence and is also contrary to the
related provisions of law.
10. The first contention of the learned Sr. counsel is that, it is an
admitted fact that the said petitioner was arrested in the State of Assam at the
Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi, International Airport, which is outside the
jurisdiction of the Ri-Bhoi, District Court. This was done without any arrest
warrant being issued. In this regard, reference has been made to a
communication dated 16.05.2012 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all States, wherein
guidelines have been given as to what is required to be done when and how a
person implicated in a case in one State may be arrested in connection with
such case in another State which is outside the jurisdiction of the said State.
6
2026:MLHC:102
11. In this connection, the said guideline prescribed under Section 48
of the Cr.P.C is that, a person can be arrested anywhere in India. Similarly,
under Section 77 of the said Code, a warrant may be executed anywhere in
India, however, as per Section 79 of the Code, when a warrant directed to a
police officer is to be executed beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court
issuing the same, he shall ordinarily take it for endorsement either to an
Executive Magistrate or to a Police Officer not below the rank of an Officer-
In-Charge of a Police Station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
warrant is to be executed. In the event, of such arrest, the person arrested is to
be produced before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. However, this
procedure has been totally overlooked when the petitioner was arrested from
the said Guwahati Airport, and as such, such arrest has become illegal, submits
the learned Sr. counsel.
12. Another contention raised by the learned Sr. counsel is that,
apparently all the sections of law involved in the alleged offence said to have
been committed by the petitioner, if proven to be true, would entail a
maximum punishment of 7 years imprisonment. In this regard, before the
petitioner was arrested, it was mandatory for the police to have issued a Notice
under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which is para materia with Section 41A (1)
of the Cr.P.C, wherein, it has been stipulated that where the arrest of the
7
2026:MLHC:102
person is not required, a Notice must be issued, directing such a person to
appear before the police officer at such place and time as may be specified in
the Notice. This is particularly relevant where the offences involved are
punishable with imprisonment of upto 7 years.
13. To buttress this contention, the learned Sr. counsel has referred to
the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.,
[SLP (Crl.) No.5191/2021] which order at para 32 reads as follows:
“32. The power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section
35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 must be interpreted as a strict
objective necessity, and not a subjective convenience for the police
officer. It does not mean the police officer can arrest to simply ask
questions. However, it means that the police officer must satisfy
himself that the investigation, qua an offence punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years, cannot proceed effectively without
taking the concerned individual into custody. Any interpretation to
the contrary would clearly frustrate the purpose and legislative
intent of Sections 35(1)(b) and Sections 35(3) to 35(6) of the
BNSS, 2023.
33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as
follows:
a. An arrest by a police officer is a mere statutory
discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper
investigation, in the form of collection of evidence and,
therefore, shall not be termed as mandatory.
b. Consequently, the police officer shall ask himself the
question as to whether an arrest is a necessity or not, before
undertaking the said exercise.
c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with
8
2026:MLHC:102imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section
35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS, 2023 along with any one of the
conditions mentioned in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS,
2023 must be in existence.
d. A notice under Section 35(3) of offences the BNSS,
2023 to an accused or any individual concerned, qua
offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, is
the rule.
e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a
person are available in terms of the conditions mentioned
under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall
not be undertaken, unless it absolutely warranted.
f. Power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section
35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, pursuant to a notice issued
under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 is not a matter of
routine, but an exception, and the police officer is expected
to be circumspect and slow in exercising the said power.”
14. Leading this Court to the operative portion of the impugned order
dated 15.12.2025, wherein the learned CJM has in the course of cancellation
of the said bail granted to the petitioner, Shri. Gopal Krishan Gour, has also
directed that he be arrested and taken into custody in accordance with law, the
learned Sr. counsel has contended that since the said petitioner has been
arrested subsequently on the basis of the said order, the process of arrest not
done in accordance with law as has been pointed out herein, therefore, the
impugned order cannot be sustained, and the same is to be set aside and
quashed.
15. Another submission of the learned Sr. counsel is that the petitioner
9
2026:MLHC:102
is a senior citizen aged about 63 years of age, and as such, his arrest is contrary
to the provision laid down under section 35(7) of the BNSS, which provides
that no arrest shall be made without prior permission of an officer not below
the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the case of a person who is
infirm or above 60 years of age.
16. Finally, the last limb of argument advanced by the learned Sr.
counsel is that the petitioner is suffering from a number of ailments when he
was diagnosed to be suffering from a typical chest pain (Angina Equivalent)
and was admitted at ARHI Hospital, 11th Mile, Mawsmai, Jorabat on
10.02.2026 and discharged on 16.02.2026 with referral to the Cardiology
Department, NEIGRIHMS for further management. He was accordingly
admitted at NEIGRIHMS and is in the ICU at present. On his admission in
NEIGRIHMS, his medical history shows that his case is one of hypotensive
presented with classical angina chest pain, Acute Coronary
Syndrome/Unstable Angina/NSTEMI. Therefore, on this ground too, the
petitioner may be allowed to be enlarged on bail, further submits the learned
Sr. counsel.
17. On the above premise, it is prayed that the petitioner/accused, Shri.
Gopal Krishan Gour may be allowed to go on bail with any conditions to be
imposed by this Court which will be abided with.
10
2026:MLHC:102
18. Per contra, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG along with Mr. J.N.
Rynjah, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has strongly opposed
the prayer made and has submitted that the history of the case of the petitioner,
Shri. Gopal Krishan Gour would reveal that he has been abusing the process
of law time and again for which, he is not entitled to any leniency by this Court
or by process of law.
19. On the application of the petitioner made in Crl.Rev.P. No. 15 of
2026, wherein the impugned order dated 15.12.2025(supra) was sought to be
set aside and quashed, the learned AAG has raised the preliminary issue of
maintainability of such application, inasmuch as, the same was preferred
under Section 442 read with 438 of the BNSS which empowers the High Court
to exercise revisional jurisdiction. However, this revisional power cannot be
exercise where an interlocutory order is concerned as in the present case.
20. Further, elaborating on this, the learned AAG has submitted that
Section 442 of the BNSS is para materia with Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and under Section 397, Sub-Section 2, it has been clearly
provided that the powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order. An order granting or cancellation of bail is an
interlocutory order, maintains the learned AAG. The case of Anil Kumar
Bansal v. State, 2011 SCC Online Del 2647, para 17 and the case of Nilu Vs.
11
2026:MLHC:102
State, 1983 SCC Online Ori 149, para 5 has been referred to in this regard.
21. The learned AAG has also submitted that the petitioner in question
was granted pre-arrest bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated
29.04.2025 with a stipulation that he shall fully co-operate with the
investigation, and in case, he fails to do so, the State respondent is at liberty
to move the Trial Court for cancellation of his bail.
22. In this respect, records would show that the said petitioner has
flouted the order of the Apex Court by failing to co-operate with the
investigating agency, which has prompted the State to file an application
seeking cancellation of his bail, inter alia, on the ground that he has failed to
appear before the Investigating Officer despite service of Notice, that he has
also furnished incorrect and misleading contact details as far as his
whereabouts are concerned, since he was not found at the address given by
him to the authorities. He has also left the jurisdiction of the Court even when
he was directed otherwise. This act of defiant cannot be overlooked by this
Court while considering the prayer of the petitioner herein, and as such, the
prayer made for grant of bail may be rejected, submits the learned AAG.
23. This Court has given considerable thought to the case of the parties
herein, and has also taken into account the sum and substance of the argument
12
2026:MLHC:102
advanced by the learned counsels across the board.
24. The first issue to be considered is with regard to the contention of
the learned AAG, as far as maintainability of the Criminal Revision Petition
No. 15 of 2025. As has been submitted and borne out from the records, the
order impugned in the said revision petition is the cancellation of bail of the
petitioner in question. On the basis of the law and the authorities referred to
by the learned AAG, the petitioner has not been able to counter the argument
that the said impugned order is not an interlocutory order. The application
made under Section 442 read with section 438 of the BNSS, which is para
materia to Section 397(2) Cr.P.C cannot be entertained by this Court, the same
being without jurisdiction.
25. Having maintained the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed
by the learned CJM, Ri-Bhoi in Criminal Misc. No. 5 of 2025, what follows
next is the implementation of such order. This Court having noticed that the
direction of the learned CJM is for the accused to be arrested and taken into
custody in accordance with law, therefore, it stands to reason that the relevant
portion of law has to be complied with before the accused/petitioner is to be
arrested.
26. The law of arrest stipulates that any person suspected to have
13
2026:MLHC:102
committed an offence is liable to be arrested by the police even without a
warrant as the case may be. However, another aspect of how arrest is to be
affected is by way of issuance of a warrant of arrest.
27. As has been pointed out the procedure of arrest as per Section 79
Cr.P.C, is that, if a warrant directed to police officer is to be executed beyond
the local jurisdiction of the court issuing the same, such police officer has to
get the endorsement either from an Executive Magistrate or the Officer-In-
Charge of the local police station before such arrest is affected. This position
of law has been reiterated in the said communication of the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India dated 16.05.2012 (supra).
28. In the case involving the petitioner herein, it is seen that after his
bail was cancelled, and on his arrest being directed, firstly there is no warrant
of arrest issued in this regard. Secondly, admittedly, the petitioner was
arrested at the Guwahati Airport on 27.01.2026, in the State of Assam, but
was shown arrest at the Khanapara in the State of Meghalaya, at about 8:00
PM. This could only be an attempt by the arresting authority to show
compliance with due procedure, when in fact, there has occurred a procedural
lapse at the time when the petitioner was arrested.
29. Another contention raised by the learned Sr. counsel for the
14
2026:MLHC:102
petitioner is that he was actually on his way to the concerned police station in
compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that he should
made himself available before the investigating authorities, but on his way, he
was arrested at the said airport. In this respect, this Court is of the view that
the authorities concerned ought to have been mindful of the situation and
should have allowed the petitioner to comply with the Supreme Court’s order.
30. Be that as it may, the stage has reached to a point that the petitioner
is now in custody and has therefore made a prayer for grant of bail primarily
on the ground that he is a senior citizen of about 63 years old and under the
provision of Section 35(7) of the BNSS, his arrest ought not to have been
made without the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police.
31. The second ground relied upon by the learned Sr. counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner is seriously ill, and as has been indicated herein
above, is presently in the ICU Ward at NEIGRIHMS. So as to enable the
family members of the petitioner to take care of his treatment which may
require for his treatment in a private medical facility, therefore, on this ground
too, it is prayed that bail may be granted to the petitioner.
32. It need not be reminded that in our country, the Constitution
15
2026:MLHC:102
provides procedures and safeguards to protect the personal liberty of a citizen,
even one who is incarcerated in custody for having committed a criminal
offence, though such right is limited by due procedure established by law. In
a situation which may have some resemblance to the case in hand, the
observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr, (2005) 2 SCC 42, para 18 may
be noted herein as:
“18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away
except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article
21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates
deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law.
Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of
offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in
custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail
in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as
being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law.
But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to
bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him
and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in
spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release
such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In
that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail
is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent
application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact
situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing
require that such persons be released on bail, in spite of his earlier
applications being rejected, the courts can do so.”
33. Since it is apparent that the petitioner/accused is not under medical
16
2026:MLHC:102
treatment at the prison facility, but is presently undergoing treatment at
NEIGRIHMS, on this ground alone, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer
made for grant of bail.
34. It is also reiterated that looking into the nature of the accusation
and the severity of the punishment for the alleged offence, which would
amount to the maximum period of 7 years, if convicted, this Court under the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner, is persuaded to
allow the prayer made for grant of bail.
35. Accordingly, as far as his arrest in connection with Khanapara P.S.
Case No. 25 (07) 2024 under Section 381/408/120B is concerned, the
petitioner is to be immediately released on bail, by the Trial Court holding
jurisdiction, if not in custody in other cases, 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 India, except with
due permission of the court concerned;
iv) That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount to
17
2026:MLHC:102
the satisfaction of the Trial Court; and
v) That he shall surrender his passport, if any to the
Investigating Officer, who will hand over the same only if
so directed under law or by an appropriate order of the Trial
Court.
36. In view of the above noted observations, these petitions are
accordingly disposed of. No costs.
37. Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court case record.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 18
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.02.21 18:17:54 IST
