SAPNA TAMANG v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-08-18. SAPNA TAMANG v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 10 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 147 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18. 08. 2026 Smti. Sapna Tamang Daughter of Shri. Bhim Bahadur Tamang Resident of House No. 115, Wahtipthoh, Madanrting, Shillong – 793021 District : East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya :::Petitioner -Vs- 1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Home Police Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong 2. Station Head Officer, Surathkal Police Station, Mangaluru City, District : Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, PIN Code : 575014 3. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd, Police Bazar, Shillong – 793001 District : East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya :::Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Thapa, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. D. Syiem, GA (For R 1) Mr. S. Marpan, Adv. (For R 3). 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. In this matter where prayer has been made for de-freezing of the account of the writ petitioner and for retention of the lien amount. Mr. S. Marpan, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 3 today has produced instructions that the disputed amount is of Rs. 1 Lakh 50 Thousand, and that is the only amount which will be kept on lien in the petitioner’s account. 2. The submission is noted and the communication dated 28. 06. 2026, is also perused. 3. Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel who is present on behalf of the petitioner has no objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Bank. 4. However, it is noted that in the prayer, the petitioner has stated that Rs. 8 Lakhs, is the disputed amount, which however, as per submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is only 1 Lakh 50 Thousand. 5.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by allowing the respondent No. 3 to keep on lien an amount of 1 Lakh 50 Thousand, and the account of the writ petitioner be defrozen forthwith. 6. As ordered above, this writ petition stands closed and disposed of. Judge Meghalaya 18. 08. 2026 “D. Thabah-PS” Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3 Digitally signed by DARIHUN THABAH Date: 2026. 08. 18 15:42:06 IST
Source: High Court of Meghalaya. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.