GOPAL KRISHAN GOUR v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 ORS.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE REVATI MOHITE DERE, CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-07-27. GOPAL KRISHAN GOUR v. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 2 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 02 Daily List 2026:MLHC:778 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. Petn. No. 89/2025 with Crl. Petn. No. 90/2025 Date of Order: 27. 07. 2026 Shri Gopal Krishan Gour ..... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Home & Police Department, Government of Meghalaya. 2. The Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills District, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong, Meghalaya. 3. Shri Kishore Kumar Sharma ..... Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Chanda, Adv with Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. J. N. Rynjah, GA with Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Adv for R/3 i) Whether approved for reporting in No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: No JUDGMENT: (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.
Despite several orders, the petitioner on every occasion comes with some excuse or the other for not reporting to the concerned officer of the Nongpoh Police Station, despite having given an assurance. 3. Since this Court intends to vacate the interim relief, it will be necessary to note the orders passed in the aforesaid petition. th 4. On 15 April, 2026, the Superintendent of Police, who was present in Court had assured that the investigation will be done fairly and impartially and had also assured that the petitioner will not be arrested without the permission of this Court, as at that stage, arrest was not required. The said statement was accepted and the investigation was directed to be continued, however, report was not be filed without the leave of this Court. rd 5. On 3 June, 2026, the petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned Officer, as and when summoned and cooperate with the investigation. th 6.
On 17 June, 2026, despite the statement made by the concerned Police Officer before this Court that the petitioner will not be arrested, the petitioner never attended the Police Station nor participated in the investigation. When confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner assured and undertook to this Court that the petitioner will appear before the concerned Police Officer th st on 30 June, 2026 and 1 July, 2026. The concerned Police Officer was asked to inform the petitioner of the said dates via SMS or e-mail and the documents to be brought, if any. nd 7. Thereafter, on 2 July, 2026, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed this Court that the petitioner could not appear on the dates given, due to his shoulder problem. However, learned counsel assured that the petitioner would appear before the concerned officer of the Nongpoh Police rd th Station on 23 and 24 July, 2026 at 10 am and will comply th with the order dated 17 June, 2026.
The said statement was accepted and the interim relief was continued. 8. Despite the aforesaid, the petitioner did not care to appear before the concerned Officer. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in the hospital, however, no documents are placed before this Court to show that, he is currently admitted in the hospital. Neither has the petitioner informed the police of his inability to appear and seek a new date from the police, or inform the police of his date, i. e. when he would be appearing before the concerned Officer. This is nothing but sheer defiance of the orders passed by this Court and as such, in this background as stated aforesaid, the interim protection stands vacated. It is now open to the police to take such steps as are necessary in accordance with law. Infact, considering the defiant conduct of the petitioner i. e.
, not cooperating with the investigation and failing to attend the Police Station, despite being given opportunities, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner and as such, the petitions ought to be dismissed on this very ground. 9. Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed. 10. It is open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in the event he attends the Police Station and co-operates with the investigation. (Revati Mohite Dere) Chief Justice
Source: High Court of Meghalaya. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.