BAPPAN DAS v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2025-08-04. BAPPAN DAS v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 09 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG AB. No. 16 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04. 08. 2025 Shri. Bappan Das, S/o (L) S. Das, R/o Bivar Road, Shillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. …….. Petitioner - Vs- State of Meghalaya Represented by the Public Prosecutor …….. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv. Ms. H. Nongpluh, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG with Mr. J. N. Rynjah, GA. Ms. S. Laloo, GA. for R 1. Ms. N. M. Kharshemlang, Adv. for R 2. 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 Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. J. N. Rynjah and Ms. S. Laloo, learned GA for the State respondent No. 1 and Ms. N. M. Kharshemlang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant. 2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of hearing, has produced copy of the notice dated 30. 07. 2025 issued by the Investigating Officer, Laitumkhrah Police Station under Section 35 (3) BNSS, calling upon the petitioner herein to appear before her on 01. 08. 2025, copy of which is brought on record and marked as Annexure-X. 3. The learned counsel has also produced another document which is the acknowledgment of the appearance of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer on 01. 08. 2025 in response to the said notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, the said document is also brought on record and marked as Annexure-Y. 4. In view of such developments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this application has become infructuous, inasmuch as, for the present, it appears that there is no apprehension of likely arrest of the petitioner. 5. Considering the submission made, this application is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 6. Matter disposed of.
Judge
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.