Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 13.08.2025 vs Shri. Gopal Krishan Gour on 13 August, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:724
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.M.C. No. 14 of 2025
Date of Decision: 13.08.2025
State of Meghalaya
Through the Investigating Officer,
Araimile Police Station,
West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
........ Petitioner
- Vs-
Shri. Gopal Krishan Gour,
S/o (L) Motilal Gour,
R/o 7/144, Vidhyadhar Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302039.
........ Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. S. Ain, GA.
Ms. S. Laloo, GA.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Pandit, Adv.
Mr. P. Kumar, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Mahajan, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1
2025:MLHC:724
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. This is an application made under Section 483(3) of the BNSS for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court vide order dated
24.09.2024 in AB. No. 16 of 2024 favouring the respondent herein.
2. Heard Ms. S. Ain, learned GA for the State petitioner, who has
submitted that an FIR dated 07.03.2024 was filed before the Officer-in-
Charge, Tura Police Station, wherein the complainant therein, had made a
number of accusations against the respondent herein who was her Manager
tasked with the affairs of managing her bonded warehouse and who in the
process, had transferred huge sum of money from the warehouse to his
personal bank account as well as to some of his relatives. The FIR is said to
have been filed to the jurisdiction of the Tura Police Station which could not
take cognizance of the same, and as such, the same was forwarded to
Araimile Police Station, whereupon Araimile P.S. Case No. 25 (05) 2024
under Section 406/417/420/465 IPC was registered.
3. On coming to know of the lodgment of such FIR, the
respondent/accused had approached this Court with an application for grant
of anticipatory bail, the same being registered as AB. No. 16 of 2024. This
Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 passed therein, had granted interim bail
to the respondent by imposing certain conditions such as, direction to appear
2
2025:MLHC:724
before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
4. The respondent, however, had violated the conditions of the
interim bail granted to him, and has failed to appear before the Investigating
Officer on being called. However, on the date fixed for hearing of the petition
before this Court, the respondent/accused had sought for leniency as against
his conduct and had assured this Court that he would abide with any
conditions to be imposed, if the prayer for interim bail is granted.
5. This Court has then, vide order dated 24.09.2024 made the interim
bail absolute and had directed that in the event of his arrest, he shall be
released on bail provided he complies with certain conditions set out in the
order.
6. It is the further submission of the learned GA that the respondent
in spite of several requests made by the Investigating Officer, including
service of several notices, including notice issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C,
calling upon him to produce certain documents and also notice under Section
41A Cr.P.C, calling upon him to appear at Araimile Police Station on
10.12.2022, he has failed to appear before the Investigating Officer on such
date. Another notice under Section 41A was issued upon him through his
counsel requiring him to appear personally before the Court of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tura on 17.01.2024 for recording of his specimen
3
2025:MLHC:724
handwriting, the respondent has yet again failed to appear before the
Investigating Officer as well as the learned CJM.
7. Again, the learned GA has submitted that in the intervening period,
while still on bail, an FIR was also lodged against the respondent alleging
that he has threatened a witness. However, as far as the case in question is
concerned, the fact that he has failed to appear before the Investigating
Officer, the respondent has also not yet furnished his personal bond of ₹
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only along with the said sureties to the
Investigating Officer or the concerned court and has also failed to deposit his
passport with the Investigating Officer.
8. For the above facts, what is apparent is that the respondent has
violated the bail conditions set out by this Court, particularly condition No.
(i), (iii) and (v). As such, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled on
this ground alone.
9. In support of her contention, the learned GA has cited the case of
Hanuman Satedwal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., wherein the Apex Court
vide order dated 22.07.2016 in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 685 of 2016, on
the facts of the case noting that the accused person therein is not cooperating
with the Investigating Officer, had set aside the order of the High Court,
granting anticipatory bail to the accused-respondent No. 2. Similarly, in the
4
2025:MLHC:724
case of Durg Vijay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 30.05.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s). 4320-4321/2023 had upheld the order of the High Court
wherein the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner therein was cancelled
on observing that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation
and was not responding to the Investigating Officer despite being called.
10. Per contra, Mr. S. Pandit, learned counsel for the
respondent/accused has refuted the contention raised by the learned GA, and
has submitted that the accused has not violated any of the conditions
aforesaid. In fact, at the first instant, when the respondent/accused was
granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2024, he had
appeared before the Investigating Officer on 19.09.2024 and was also made
to execute a bail bond.
11. When the respondent/accused on being granted the relief of
anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.09.2024 in AB. No. 16 of 2024, it is a
fact that one of the bail conditions is that, he should make himself available
to the Investigating Officer as and when required, however, in view of his
sickness on 16.01.2025, the respondent/accused could not appear before the
Investigating Officer and has instructed his counsel to inform the
Investigating Officer of the same. This was in response to a notice under
5
2025:MLHC:724
Section 41A Cr.P.C dated 07.12.2024 issued by the Investigating Officer,
calling upon him to appear before him on 17.01.2025 and to produce the
original documents which were seized in course of investigation. It is
therefore not the intention of the respondent/accused not to appear before the
Investigating Officer or to violate any of the conditions imposed, submits the
learned counsel.
12. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the bonafide
of the respondent/accused is clearly made out, when on receipt of notice
under Section 91 Cr.P.C, calling upon him to produce certain documents, he
had accordingly done so, and has dispatched such documents on 07.12.2024.
However, the direction of the Investigating Officer that he should appear
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura, could
not be complied with, since no formal notice have been received from the
Court of the said learned CJM. Thereafter, no notice or date has been fixed
for the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer.
13. The learned counsel has also submitted that even though, it is a
fact that he has failed to appear before the Investigating Officer on one or
two dates, however, failure to do so, cannot be a ground for cancellation of
bail. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to the case
of Directorate General of GST Intelligence v. Manish Goyal, wherein vide
6
2025:MLHC:724
order dated 19.01.2024 in CRL.M.C 881/2023, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi at para 16 of the same, looking into the facts and circumstances of the
case therein, had observed that, “non-appearance for investigation on one
or two dates cannot be ground for cancellation of bail…”
14. Finally, it is submitted that this petition may be dismissed as
devoid of merits and the respondent/accused be allowed to appear before the
Investigating Officer on being summoned, considering the fact that he is
being implicated in a number of criminal cases and is also of advanced age
of about 65 years.
15. This Court has considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties and in course of these proceedings, had also required
the Investigating Officer to file the status report which was done so. The
Investigating Officer, in his report, has reiterated that the respondent/accused
ever since he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, had failed to appear
before him inspite of notices under Section 91 Cr.P.C which was served on
him on 25.11.2024, requiring him to appear before the police and to produce
relevant documents in connection with the case and also that he is to appear
before the court for recording of his specimen handwriting, he has failed to
do so. On 07.12.2024, one Advocate, Shri. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, had
appeared on his behalf and though, notice under Section 41A was issued
7
2025:MLHC:724
upon the respondent/accused through the said Advocate, calling upon him to
appear in Tura Court on 17.01.2025, he has again failed to appear by citing
grounds of illness. The fact is that the respondent/accused has failed to
appear before him till date.
16. On a query made by this Court, the learned counsel has fairly
admitted that the respondent has not yet appeared before the Investigating
Officer for the reasons that he was not keeping well. It is also further
admitted that the bail bonds are yet to be executed before the Investigating
Officer for this reason, that is, because of the fact that he is unable to appear
before the Investigating Officer.
17. Again, as far as deposit of the passport of the respondent is
concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that the passport has been
retained by the Passport authorities at Jaipur, Rajasthan, for which due
intimation was given to the Investigating Officer in this regard, as such, there
is no question of violation of the bail conditions in this connection. In fact,
in view of the respondent being implicated in a number of criminal cases, the
passport of the respondent has since been cancelled.
18. What is observed by this Court herein is that the respondent was
granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.09.2024 with conditions
imposed therein. The purpose of granting anticipatory bail is to allow the
8
2025:MLHC:724
person concerned to approach the relevant authorities, whether it is the
Investigating Officer or the court, to formally affect his arrest and thereafter,
to be immediately granted bail, whereupon he is required to execute the bail
bonds in his personal capacity and also to produce sureties who would also
execute similar bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting authorities.
19. The next step is for his cooperation in the ongoing investigation
for which, he is required to appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when called for. Further, in this particular case, the respondent is also
directed to deposit his passport before the Investigating Officer.
20. None of the above steps have been taken by the respondent and the
only reason given is that, he is having medical problems which has prevented
him from appearing before the Investigating Officer. However, this assertion
has been proved otherwise, inasmuch as, by his own admission, on
16.02.2025, he has appeared before the Khanapara Police Station, Ri-Bhoi
District in connection with Khanapara P.S. Case No. 25 (7) 2024, for which
he was then brought to Tura, West Garo Hills District in connection with
Tura Women Case No. 8 of 2025, and again, being arrested in connection
with another case being Ampati P.S. Case No. 10 (2) 2025.
21. Under such circumstances, the respondent could not have taken
the ground of sickness, perpetually to avoid appearing before the
9
2025:MLHC:724
Investigating Officer in connection with the case for which he was granted
anticipatory bail. The conduct of the respondent has clearly exhibited a clear
mindset of defiance in complying with the aforesaid bail conditions. He
could not take shelter in the case of Manish Goyal (supra) as at para 16 of
the said case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has noted that, the accused
therein had appeared before the authorities on various occasions except for
one or two dates, which is not the case herein.
22. Therefore, being convinced that there is an attempt by the
respondent to scuttle the process of the judicial administration by trying to
avoid compliance of the directions of this Court, the act of the respondent
can only be seen as one of deliberate failure to abide by the aforesaid bail
conditions.
23. As to the assertion as regard the cancellation of his passport, under
such circumstances, the condition imposed by this Court for deposit of the
same before the Investigating Officer has become infructuous. Therefore, on
this account, the respondent could not be held liable for not complying with
the aforesaid condition.
24. Accordingly, even while acknowledging the authorities cited by
the learned GA, this Court is convinced that the State has made out a case
for cancellation of the bail granted vide order dated 24.09.2024 (supra). The
10
2025:MLHC:724
same is hereby done so.
25. On the said bail being cancelled, the Investigating Officer is
directed to take steps for taking the respondent to custody in connection with
the said Araimile P.S. Case No. 25 (05) 2024 under Section 406/417/420/465
IPC.
26. Application disposed of. No costs.
27. Send back the case diary.
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by 11
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2025.08.13 18:50:16 IST