LABIANGDOR SYIEM v. THE 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 2025-08-22. LABIANGDOR SYIEM v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 02 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. M. C. No. 86 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22. 08. 2025 Smti. Labiangdor Syiem, Aged about 40 years, W/o Shri. James Lyngdoh, R/o- Mawprem, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. ….. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Meghalaya Represented by Secretary (Home) Government of Meghalaya. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya. ….. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. S. Yadav, Adv. Mr. S. Purkayastha, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Khan, P. P with Mr. A. H. Kharwanlang, Addl. P. P ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. S. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that this Court vide order dated 26. 05.
2025 has allowed the accused to go on interim bail for 90 days on the ground that he is required to proceed for his treatment at CMC Vellore. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner has accordingly visited CMC Vellore and was treated for his ailment. He is now back at his place of residence at Mawprem, Shillong. However, the learned counsel has again, stressed on the fact that the accused has not yet fully recovered from his illness and is required to visit CMC Vellore from time to time. 2. Furthermore, the accused is also undergoing a severe traumatic experience and is under major depressive disorder condition for which the psychiatrist has opined that he requires strong family support for his recovery. Relevant medical reports have been annexed in this petition at page Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. 3.
In view of the fact aforementioned, it is prayed that the interim bail granted to the accused may be regularized with any conditions that this Court may deem fit and proper to impose. 4. Mr. K. Khan, learned P. P in all fairness, considering the medical condition that the accused is undergoing, has not made any strong objection to the prayer of the petitioner and has further submitted that the case of the accused before the trial court is at the stage of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses as such, conditions may be imposed to ensure that the accused appears in court as and when required. 5. This Court without going into the merits of the case of the accused person is inclined to allow the prayer made solely on the ground of the medical condition of the accused. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The interim bail granted to the accused person is hereby made absolute and on being enlarged on bail, he is to fulfill the following conditions: i.
That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence and witnesses; ii. That he shall appear in court as and when called for; iii. That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Meghalaya, except with due permission of the court concerned; and iv. That he shall bind himself on a bond of ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only along with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 7. Petition disposed of. No costs. Judge
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.