The principle of granting bail emphasizes personal liberty, presumption of innocence, and must be exercised judiciously, taking all relevant circumstances into account.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the accused person, Shri. Aylmer S. Hynniewta, son of the petitioner herein, who was arrested in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 03(11) of 2022 under Sections 120(B)/409/420 IPC read with Sections 11/13(1)(a)/13(2) PC Act, 1998.

2. Heard Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the background facts of the case is that the police department requiring a Mobile Forensic Van with equipments had sought for quotations from M/s Bomver Force and the said firm in reply vide letter dated 04.12.2018 had quoted a price of ₹ 42,50,000/- (Rupees forty two lakhs fifty thousand) only for the same following which, the police department issued a supply order vide letter dated 07.06.2019.

3. In the said supply order, all the items that were required to be suppled were listed and divided into three categories namely A, B and C, A being the vehicle itself which is a Force Traveller Delivery Van 4020 (6 wheel), B being the equipments required for laboratory interior and C being the testing equipments required to be kept in the vehicle.

4. Again, it is submitted that on receipt of the said supply order, M/s Bomver Force took steps to order the vehicle and all the required equipments under A, B and C. The vehicle and interior fittings under A and B was ordered from Force India, while the order for items categorized at C was made from one company by the name of Technomaxx Forensics Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad, Haryana for a sum of ₹ 3,92,940/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety two thousand nine hundred forty) only.

5. The vehicle along with the interior works on being completed and temporary registration obtained, the firm wanted to deliver the same to the police department, however with an endorsement that the testing equipment at C is yet to be delivered as the same has not yet been supplied by the supplier and to this effect, a personnel from the police department came and took delivery of the vehicle with a check list wherein it was clearly marked that the vehicle at category A and B was received except for C which was not received but was however assured by the supplier firm that as soon as the said items are received from Technomaxx Forensics, the same will be handed over to the police department.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that an FIR dated 14.11.2022 was lodged by C.I.D Meghalaya Police alleging that during the period between January 2019 to March 2020, Shri. G.K. Iangrai, MPS, AIG (A) had entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown public servants and others to cause wrongful loss to the Government of Meghalaya and wrongful gain to himself and others in the matter of procurement of vehicles to the police department. In this regard, it is also said that Shri. Iangrai had sanctioned an amount of ₹ 42,30,000/- (Rupees forty two lakhs thirty thousand) only to M/s Bomver Force for the crime scene vehicle which vehicle was delivered without any tools mentioned in the supply order.

7. Pursuant to the said FIR, the police inquired into the matter and questioned the accused person as well as the petitioner and her daughter who are the family members of the proprietor of the said M/s Bomver Force, who by then, had since expired on 05.12.2021 and has eventually arrested the son of the petitioner on 18.02.2023.

8. The learned counsel has submitted that the accused person though he is the son of the deceased proprietor of the firm, yet he is not the owner of the firm as he is working in the said firm in the capacity of an employee and has acted on behalf of the firm and the proprietor and not on his own behalf even when dealing with the matter