Meghalaya High Court
Smti. Edaphilarisa Kharnaior vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 4 July, 2025
Author: W.Diengdoh
Bench: W.Diengdoh
Serial No.01
Supp. List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA. No. 35 of 2025
Date of Order: 04.07.2025
Smti. Edaphilarisa Kharnaior Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W.Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S.S.Yadav, Adv.
Mr. S.Purkayastha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.Kumar, AG with
Ms. S.Laloo, GA.
Mr. A.H.Kharwanlang,Addl.PP.
1. Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner who has
submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the accused person named
Robinus Ripnar, who was arrested on 12-03-2024 in connection with
Nongpoh P.S.Case No. 25(3)2024 under Sections 120 B/121 A IPC read
with Section 10/13/18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)
read with Section 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act. The case on being
investigated has resulted in the Investigating Officer to file the chargesheet
upon which the learned Special Judge [UA(P)], Nongpoh, Ri-Bhoi District
has taken cognisance of the same and eventually, UA(P) Case. No. 1 of 2024
has been registered.
1
2. The learned counsel has also opened his case by citing facts of the
case and had gone on to submit that the accused person in question has been
falsely implicated in the case and more particularly, the statutory provision
of Sub-Section 1 of Section 43 B has been violated on the arresting
authorities failing to inform the accused person of the grounds of his arrest.
The next contention of the learned counsel is that there are no evidences on
record to implicate him as far as the alleged offence is concerned, and finally
the fact that the accused person has been in custody for almost 1(one) year
4(four) months, such prolonged incarceration would entitle him to be
granted bail on account of delay in trial.
3. Mr. A.Kumar, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. S.Laloo,
learned GA on behalf of the respondents, in response to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset raised
preliminary objection on the maintainability of this application. Learned
Advocate General has also submitted that the State respondents may be
allowed to produce the complete chargesheet and other relevant materials
for this Court to be apprised of the exact facts and circumstances of the case
of the accused person in question and for this, some time is prayed for the
relevant objection to be placed before this Court by way of an affidavit.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made and as regards the
initial objection raised by the learned Advocate General on the issue of
maintainability, the prayer made for filing of written objection in this regard
is allowed. It is however made clear that the said response be filed within
the next returnable date, with advance copy to be furnished upon the
petitioner who will then file his reply, if so advised.
2
5. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, list this matter on
15-07-2025 for further hearing.
Judge
Meghalaya
04.07.2025
“Samantha PS”
3