LOBILIAN MARPNA v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2025-02-06. LOBILIAN MARPNA v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 04 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG AB. No. 1 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06. 02. 2025 Shri. Lobilian Marpna, Wife of (L) Lumstarwell Kharshandi, Resident of Mawsynram Dongneng East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …….. Applicant - Vs- 1. State of Meghalaya represented by Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya. 2. Investigating Officer (IO), Mawsynram Police Station, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …….. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. S. K. Nongrum, Adv. Mr. A. M. Pala, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Khan, PP with Mr. J. N. Rynjah, GA. Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP. 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 Ms. S. K. Nongrum, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. K. Khan, learned PP assisted by Mr. J. N. Rynah, learned GA and Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl.
PP for the State respondents has produced the latest status report filed by the Investigating Officer, the same is hereby brought on record and marked as Annexure-X. It is the submission of the learned PP that the accused person in question i. e. Shri. Lasterfield Bortiew is said to be involved in connection with Mawsynram P. S. Case No. 01(01) 2025 under Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The learned PP also submits that the accused person, on being summoned by the Investigating Officer, has duly appeared, and is cooperating with the ongoing investigation. It is the further submission of the learned PP that this would indicate that the Investigating Officer in all probability will not choose to arrest the said accused person, unless he fails to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He, however submits that there is no strong objection if any order is passed in favour of the accused person as far as this instant application is concerned. 4.
This Court on consideration of the submission made, is in agreement with the learned PP to say that the tone and tenor of the status report of the Investigating Officer would indicate that there is no likelihood of the accused person to be arrested. 5. Be that as it may, as far as this Court is concerned, considering the total facts and circumstances as could be seen from the petition in hand, that is, the relationship of the accused person with the survivor and also with the complainant, it will not be out of place to allow the prayer made. 6.
Accordingly, in the event of his arrest, the accused person in question is 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 bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; iii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; and iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the State of Meghalaya without the permission of the Investigating Officer. 7. Needless to say, it is open to the Investigating Officer to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court for seeking arrest of the accused person in question in case he fails to cooperate with the investigation. 8. In view of the above, this application is accordingly disposed of. Judge Signature Not Verified 4 Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2025. 02. 06 17:29:47 IST
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.