03.03.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 3 March, 2025

0
91

Meghalaya High Court

Date Of Decision: 03.03.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 3 March, 2025

Author: W. Diengdoh

Bench: W. Diengdoh

                                                                     2025:MLHC:127




Serial No. 06
Regular List



                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                              AT SHILLONG


AB. No. 7 of 2025
                                                      Date of Decision: 03.03.2025
Shri. Gopal Krishna Gour,
S/o (L) Motilal Gour,
R/o Rukmani Jewellers (P) Ltd
Shivshakti Paradise G-66-67,
Central Soine Rd. Sector-2
Central Spince, Vidhyadhar Nagar
Jaipur Rajasthan-302039
                                                           ........Petitioner
                                      - Vs-

1.     The State of Meghalaya
       Represented by the Commissioner
       Secretary, Home Department
       Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

2.     Smti. Chingkame Momin,
       D/o Sengran M. Sangma,
       Proprietor of Planet Bonded Warehouse Super
       Market, P.O & P.S Bhagmara, South Garo Hills,
       Meghalaya.
                                                ........Respondents
Coram:
                Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)   :           Dr. N. Mozika, Sr. Adv. with
                                              Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Adv.


                                          1
                                                               2025:MLHC:127




                                      Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)           :     Mrs. N.G. Shylla, Sr. GA. with
                                      Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA. for R 1.
                                      Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                      Mr. Z.A. Choudhury, Adv. for R 2.
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 Dr. N. Mozika, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr.

Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, who has

submitted that this Court, on prayer made by the petitioner/accused in this

instant petition, had vide order dated 13.02.2025 granted interim bail with a

direction that the petitioner/accused herein would cooperate with the

investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

required.

2. The learned Sr. counsel also submits that admittedly, the

petitioner/accused could not appear before the Investigating Officer since

circumstances arose, whereby on his appearance before the Investigating

Officer at Khanapara Police Station, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh in

connection with another case involving the petitioner herein, he was detained

2
2025:MLHC:127

by the police of Tura Police Station, who had, in the meantime, came to the

said police station in connection with other cases filed against the

petitioner/accused within the jurisdiction of Tura Police Station.

Accordingly, he was taken by the police to Tura, and subsequently, from

Tura, he was taken into custody and ferried to Ampati Police Station, South

West Garo Hills in connection with yet another case, and was formally

arrested at Ampati.

3. Therefore, as far as this instant case is concerned, the

petitioner/accused, as pointed out, has not appeared before the Investigating

Officer. It is however the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that, if interim

bail is made absolute, he will cooperate with the Investigating Officer and

abide with any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

4. The learned Sr. counsel has also referred to page 28 of this

petition, wherein is found the extract of the FIR filed before the Officer-in-

Charge, Baghmara Police Station resulting in the registration of the said

Baghmara P.S. Case No. 04 (03) 2022 under Section 409/418/420 IPC.

5. It is to be noted that the FIR was filed in the year 2022 and

investigation is still ongoing and charge sheet is yet to be filed. The allegation

of the complainant therein is that the petitioner/accused, who has been

3
2025:MLHC:127

running her Bonded Warehouse at Baghmara from the year 2007 till 2021,

had evaded paying the required taxes to the Government and his mobile

phone was switched off. The FIR also states that a show cause notice was

issued from the concerned department, however, the same could not be

affected, since his whereabouts are not known. As such, police intervention

is required. Hence, the FIR.

6. Per contra, Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. J.N.

Rynjah, learned GA for the State respondent No. 1, has strongly opposed the

prayer made herein, and has submitted that the allegation made against the

petitioner/accused are serious in nature, even though, relevant section of law

include Section 420 IPC, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner/accused

as Manager of the concerned Bonded Warehouse, had failed to pay the

required taxes to the Government with effect from the year 2007 to 2021.

7. The learned Sr. GA also submits that, in course of investigation,

since the petitioner/accused has failed to appear before the Investigating

Officer, the police personnel had even proceeded to his known place of

residence at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan to apprehend him, and yet, could

not do so till he finally voluntarily appeared before the Khanapara Police

Station. In view of the conduct of the petitioner/accused and the severity of

4
2025:MLHC:127

the offence alleged, the learned Sr. GA has submitted that the prayer made in

this petition may not be allowed.

8. Now, what would concern this Court is to look into the conduct

and antecedent of the petitioner/accused as far as this case is concerned.

Records would reveal that since the last order passed by this Court i.e. on

13.02.2025, the Investigating Officer has not made any effort to require the

attendance of the petitioner/accused before him. Be that as it may, it is

incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to be diligent in his investigation

and from what has been submitted by the learned Sr. GA that the conduct of

the petitioner/accused is such that not only he is involved in a matter which

is serious in nature, but also that his attendance whenever required could not

be ascertained, prompting the police to even go to his residence at Jaipur. The

submission made by the learned Sr. GA would be relevant, if concerted

efforts has been made by the Investigating Officer.

9. This Court, at this juncture, would refer to an authority passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court as far as bail matters are concerned, wherein in

the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 at para 21,

the following has been observed:

“21. In bail application, generally, it has been laid down from
the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the

5
2025:MLHC:127

appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused
person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent
until duly tried and duly found guilty.”

10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is

inclined to allow the prayer made herein. Accordingly, the interim bail

granted to the petitioner/accused is hereby made absolute.

11. The petitioner/accused, Shri. Gopal Krishna Gour is directed to

be released on bail on the following conditions that:

i) He shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence and

witnesses;

ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

called for;

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without prior

permission of the Investigating Officer;

iv) He shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand) only with one surety of like amount

to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

6

2025:MLHC:127

v) He shall surrender his passport before the Investigating

Officer, and would require his permission, if he is required

to travel abroad during the pendency of the case; and

vi) He is also to give his contact number and place of residence

to the Investigating Officer immediately.

12. Needless to say, any violation of the above conditions, would

allow the prosecution to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the

bail either before the Trial Court or before this Court.

13. In view of the ongoing investigation, the petitioner/accused, in the

first instance, is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on

07.03.2025.

14. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly.

15. Registry to return back the case diary.

Judge

Signature Not Verified 7
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2025.03.03 19:23:31 IST

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here