Meghalaya High Court
Meghalaya vs The Learned Public Prosecutor on 30 July, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:805
Serial No. 07
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA No. 54 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. 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. with
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 for the petitioner, who has
submitted that this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been
1
2026:MLHC:805
filed with a prayer for grant of bail on behalf of her husband, Shri. Johny A.
Marak, who is an accused, who was arrested on 22.04.2026 on the strength of an
FIR dated 13.03.2026 lodged by one Shri. SI Cherak D. Sangma before the
Officer-in-Charge, Tura Police Station, West Garo Hills, Tura, which FIR was
registered as 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 read with Section
6/6A of the Meghalaya Maintenance of Public Order Act read with Section 8/8A
of the Meghalaya Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous District) Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution’s story is that on 10.03.2026 at
about 2:30 PM, while curfew was imposed by the District Magistrate, West Garo
Hills, Tura, a mob/group of about 300-400 unlawfully assembled PWD road
adjacent to the Muslim Graveyard on the way to Dobasipara Bus Stand and burnt
down all the mechanical shops (Garages), spare parts shops and looted some
mechanical parts, out of which several vehicles were gutted on fire. Thereafter,
they proceeded to Tura Jama Masjid, set the premises on fire and destroyed the
place of worship. Hence, the FIR.
3. The learned counsel has also submitted that the accused husband of
the petitioner has been implicated in as many as 18(eighteen) criminal cases,
9(nine) of them registered at Tura Police Station, 7(seven) cases in Araimile
Police Station and 2(two) cases registered at Phulbari Police Station. However,
the accused husband of the petitioner was granted bail in 13(thirteen) of them
2
2026:MLHC:805
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
others is under Section 189(2)/ 191(2)(3)/324(2)(5)
/326(f)(g)/113(2)(b)/61(2)/310(2) BNS read with Section 6/6A Meghalaya
Maintenance of Public Order Act and Section 8/8A Meghalaya Maintenance
Public Order (Autonomous District) Act, 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. During the pendency of this petition before this Court, the learned
counsel has submitted that the period under which the accused person in question
is under judicial custody, has crossed 90 days, within which time the charge sheet
has not yet been filed by the Investigating Officer (I/O), therefore the accused
person being entitled to default bail, prayer is made herein for grant of default
3
2026:MLHC:805
bail to the accused person with any conditions as deemed fit and proper to be
imposed by this Court.
7. Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R. Chyne, learned
GA appearing on behalf of the State respondent, has produced copy of the case
diary, and has fairly conceded that since the charge sheet could not be filed
within the said mandatory period, therefore, discretion of this Court may be
invoked to pass necessary orders.
8. This Court having heard the parties, without going into the merits of
the case herein, since the accused person in question is already entitled to default
bail, relying on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67,
para 17, it is observed that:
“17. The significance of the period of 60 days or 90 days, as the
case may be, is that if the investigation is not completed within that
period then the accused (assuming he or she is in custody) is entitled
to ‘default bail’ if no charge-sheet or challan is filed on the 60th or
90th day, the accused applies for ‘default bail’ and is prepared to
and does furnish bail for release. As can be seen from the narration
of facts, no charge-sheet or challan was filed against the petitioner
on the 60th day but was filed before the conclusion of 90 days.
Consequently, was the petitioner entitled to “default bail” after 60
days? According to the petitioner the answer is in the affirmative
since he had not committed an offence punishable with imprisonment
for not less than ten years, but according to the State he had
committed an offence punishable with imprisonment for ten years.”
9. In view of the submission of the parties herein and the application of
the relevant provisions of law as regard default bail, this Court is accordingly
4
2026:MLHC:805
inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the accused person in question is hereby directed to be
released on default bail, provided he is 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: and
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.
11. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
12. Let copy of this order be issued upon the Superintendent, District
Prisons and Correctional Home, Jowai for compliance.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 5
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.07.31 18:43:02 IST
