Meghalaya High Court
Meghalaya vs Represented By The Learned Public … on 30 July, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:808
Serial No. 06
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA No. 53 of 2026
Date of Decision: 30.07.2026
Smt. Aisha A Sangma
W/o Johny A Marak
Wife of the accused
R/o Chibra. Agalgre
P.S Rongram, Dist: West Garo Hills
Meghalaya.
......Petitioner
- Vs-
1. The State of Meghalaya,
Represented by the learned Public Prosecutor.
......Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. N.M. Kharshemlang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr. E. R. Chyne, 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. P. Ghosh, learned counsel who has submitted that the
accused/husband of the petitioner, Johny A. Marak was arrested on 09.05.2026
1
2026:MLHC:808
on the strength of an FIR dated 09.03.2026 lodged by one Shri Enamul Hoque,
which FIR was registered as Tura P.S. Case No. 21 of 2026 under Section
223(a)(b)/117(2)/310(2) BNS.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the prosecution’s case is
that on the morning of 09.03.2026 when the complainant reached the Office of
the Deputy Commissioner, Tura for filing his nomination for the GHADC
election, a group of about 40-50 people approached him and started to physically
abuse him, leading to the filing of the said FIR, the accused person in question
being roped in as one of those persons in the crowd who had attacked the
complainant.
3. The learned counsel has also submitted that the accused/husband of the
petitioner was also implicated in as many as 18 criminal cases, 9 of them
registered at Tura Police Station, 7 in Araimile Police Station and 2 registered at
Phulbari Police Station. However, the accused/husband of the petitioner was
granted bail in 13 of them and two bail applications are now under consideration
by this Court, including this instant case.
4. That all the co-accused have been granted bail in all the cases instituted
against them, the accused/husband of the petitioner is also seeking parity,
amongst other grounds, submits the learned counsel.
5. Another contention raised by the learned counsel is that the sections of
law cited by the police in the case registered against the accused herein and
2
2026:MLHC:808
others is under Section 223(a)(b)/117(2)/310(2) BNS, all sections being bailable
offence except Section 310(2) which speaks of the offence of dacoity. However,
under the facts and circumstances of the case, which is practically a case of mob
violence, there is no scope or grounds or basis to attract imposition of Section
310(2), which pertains to the offence of dacoity. As such, this is only a ploy of
the police to compel incarceration of the accused in custody.
6. Under the circumstance, it is prayed that this petition be allowed and
the accused/husband of the petitioner be enlarged on bail with any conditions
that this Court may deemed fit and proper to impose.
7. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG along with Mr. E.R. Chyne, learned
GA appearing for the State/respondent has opposed the prayer made in this
petition on the ground that there is credible evidence against the
accused/husband of the petitioner of being involved in mob violence during the
agitation in Garo Hills at the relevant point of time. The learned AAG has also
referred to the narration by the IO made in connection with Tura P.S. Case No.
21 of 2026, under Section 223(a)(b)/117(2)/310(2) BNS, wherein the name of
the accused also figured as one of those who are involved in acts of violence etc.,
and as such, his release may not be allowed so as to enable the police to make a
thorough investigation, it was further submitted.
8. This Court having heard the learned counsels for the rival parties, the
facts and circumstances of the case being laid down hereinabove, what is
3
2026:MLHC:808
understood is that during the period from 09.03.2026 there was an agitation in
the Garo Hills as a result of which allegations of mob violence, including arson,
vandalism, rioting, looting and destruction of public property have been made.
9. However as to the exact role of the accused/husband of the petitioner,
there is no direct evidence, that is, nothing has been revealed from the case dairy
to pin point his participation in such acts, including dacoity, as has been alleged
by the police in the FIR. The learned AAG has sought to impress upon this Court
that from investigation carried out in another case, that is, Tura P.S. Case No. 28
of 2026 under section 189(2)/191(2)(3)/324(2)(5)/326(f)(g)/
113(2)(b)/61(2)/310(2) BNS r/w Section 6/6A Meghalaya Maintenance of
Public Order Act r/w Section 8/8A Meghalaya Maintenance Public Order
(Autonomous District) Act, it is apparent that the accused person in question was
very much involved in such criminal acts.
10. This line of submission cannot be accepted by this Court on the ground
that no extraneous situation can be imported to implicate an accused person in
connection with the one under consideration. On perusal of the case diary also,
prima facie, there is nothing shown to directly connect the accused to the alleged
criminal acts, though investigation is yet to be concluded in this respect.
11. Another consideration is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that other co-accused have already being granted bail, therefore, in this
case, the principle of parity will prevail.
4
2026:MLHC:808
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer
made in this petition. The accused husband of the petitioner is directed to be
immediately released on bail, if not in custody in any other case, 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 bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten thousand) only with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
13. Let copy of this order be issued upon the Superintendent, District
Prisons and Correctional Home, Jowai for compliance.
14. Accordingly, petition disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
30.07.2026
“Tiprilynti-PS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by 5
TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR
Date: 2026.07.31 19:09:52 IST
