Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.06.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya on 24 June, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:536
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
AB No. 13 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.06.2025
Sandeep Bhalerao,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Bhalasahep Bhalerao
Having his corporate office at
Ador Powertron Limited, 51, D II Block, M.I.D.C,
Chinchwad, Pune - 411 019
......Applicant
VERSUS
State of Meghalaya,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Meghalaya
Through Sadar Police Station, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya, Shillong.
......Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Talukdar, Adv.
Ms. C. Das, Adv.
Mr. S. Sonowal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. P.P
Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. P.P
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1
2025:MLHC:536
ORDER (ORAL)
1. An FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police
Station on 06.03.2025 by one Mr. Anshit Raj Kakkar representing M/s Nice
Infotech wherein an allegation was made that wires connected to the VMDS
located at old Assembly, DC Office and Additional Secretariat were found
missing on being checked by the complainant and the team. Therefore, the
said FIR was filed on the ground that theft has been committed.
2. In course of investigation, on the case being registered as Sadar
P.S Case No. 64(03) of 2025 under Section 305(e)/324(3)(5) BNS, a notice
was issued upon the applicant directing him to appear before the IO on
19.05.2025. The applicant has replied to the said notice vide a
communication dated 04.06.2025 seeking rescheduling of the date of his
appearance since he is a resident of Pune, in the State of Maharashtra and
could not appear on the said date fixed. However, in the meantime,
apprehending arrest in connection with the said Sadar P.S case, the
applicant had approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court with an
application seeking transit bail to allow him to appear before the competent
court of jurisdiction in the State of Meghalaya. Vide order dated
10.06.2025, the applicant was allowed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
to appear before the competent court in the State of Meghalaya for which
he was granted transit bail.
3. The period of transit bail being exhausted, the applicant has now
approached this Court with this instant application seeking grant of pre-
arrest bail.
4. Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted
2
2025:MLHC:536
that presumably the genesis of the dispute leading to the lodgment of the
FIR is a breach of a contractual relationship between M/s Nice Infotech and
M/s Ador Powertron Limited, Pune of which the applicant is an employee
of such company in the capacity of Leader-Customer Advocacy. There
appears to be some dispute between the parties named hereinabove as
regard maintenance of Variable Messaging Signs which were put up in
multiple locations visible through sign boards.
5. It is the applicant’s company which is maintaining the functioning
of such Variable Messaging Signs. However, a dispute regarding payment
for which the complainant’s company is to make to the applicant’s
company, therefore, on some vague allegation, the applicant’s company
was alleged to have been the cause of such theft. Though nothing specific
is known, this is in the realm of speculation as far as the applicant is
concerned, submits the learned counsel.
6. However, the learned counsel has further submitted that since the
said notice under Section 35(3) BNSS has been issued, there is however,
apprehension for his arrest in the near future for which this Court is
accordingly petitioned for grant of pre-arrest bail with any conditions that
is deemed fit and proper.
7. It is, however, the submission of the learned counsel that the
applicant is a permanent resident of Pune with no criminal antecedents and
if enlarged on bail, he is willing to abide by any conditions to be imposed
by this Court and will cooperate with the investigation of the case.
8. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. P.P has submitted that prima facie,
the case of the applicant appears to be genuine inasmuch as the said notice
3
2025:MLHC:536
under Section 35(3) BNSS being issued, the applicant failing to respond to
the same, there is every possibility that the IO would follow up with an
appropriate order, even to the extent that an order for arrest of the applicant
may be made by the competent authority. Mr. S. Sengupta has however,
left the matter to the discretion of the Court as far as this application is
concerned.
9. This Court has considered the submission and contention made by
the parties. Facts as stated may not be reiterated. Suffice it to say that prima
facie, there appears to be an allegation of theft of the properties of the
complainant’s company.
10. Nothing is forthcoming as far as the investigation is concerned as
to who is or are the likely suspects in this regard. That the notice under
Section 35(3) of the BNSS has been issued upon the applicant may, to a
certain extent indicate that he is one of the suspects. Be that as it may, the
full picture of the case or the progress of the investigation is not presented
before this Court today. However, it would appear from the materials on
record and submission made that the applicant has indeed made out a case
for apprehension of arrest.
11. As far as consideration of grant of pre-arrest bail is concerned, this
Court has been guided by precedents as well as the authorities mostly of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in this area. It may not be out of place to refer to
the case of Shri. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab, reported
in (1980) 2 SCC 565 at para 35 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
clearly indicated that apprehension of fear of arrest cannot be mere fear but
has to be based on “reasons to believe” which is not mere apprehension, but
must be found on reasonable grounds.
4
2025:MLHC:536
12. In this case, this Court would agree that the learned counsel for the
applicant considering the relationship between the applicant’s company and
the complainant’s company, that element of apprehension based on
reasonable grounds is present as far as the allegation made in the FIR is
concerned.
13. It is also true that this Court while considering prayer of this nature
is guided by parameters and guidelines found in authorities issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time. Nature and gravity of the
offence and such similar consideration is to be looked into while granting
or refusing prayer made in that respect.
14. Again, the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. found in (2011) 1 SCC 694 at para 112 are some of the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are reproduced
herein below:
“112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended before
arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as
to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any
cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat
similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her.
5
2025:MLHC:536
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of
people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material
against the accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the
case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the
help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the
court should consider with even greater care and caution
because over implication in the cases is a matter of
common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors,
namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and
full investigation and there should be prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to
be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event
of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.”
15. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this application is
accordingly allowed. The applicant in the event of his arrest is to be released
on bail on the following conditions that:
1) He shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence and
witnesses;
2) He shall cooperate with the IO as and when required;
3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India during pendency of
6
2025:MLHC:536investigation or trial without prior permission from the
concerned IO or the court, if it comes to that;
4) 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 competent court of jurisdiction.
16. With the above, this application is disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR 7
Date: 2025.06.24 18:17:01 IST