Advocates:
['SK DAS', '', 'R KARIM', 'D BAEMAN', 'B GHOSH', 'A KUMAR', 'AG MEGHALAYA', '', 'H KHARMIH', 'GA']

1

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.Petn. No. 5 of 2021

Date of Decision: 18.02.2021

Dr. Sasikumar R.

Vs.

State of Meghalaya & Anr.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)

:

Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

:

Mr. H. Kharmih, GA. for R 1.

None for R 2.

i)

Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii)

Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

1.

An account given by the Petitioner is that he is presently working as an

Assistant Professor in the Department of Agri Business Management & Food

Technology, NEHU, Tura Campus, Meghalaya and had to travel to Tezpur

University, Assam on 26.06.2020 for official duty, for which he was issued

transit pass following the due protocol of COVID-19.

2.

After completion of his official duties, he returned on 08.07.2020 and

at the Meghalaya border, the police personnel after verifying all his documents

allowed him to proceed to his destination and accordingly, he reached home

at 4:30 PM and was supposed to be home-quarantined for 14(fourteen) days.

3.

However, on the next day, i.e. 09.07.2020 he received a phone call at

7:49 PM from the informant asking him to proceed to ISBT, Tura (COVID

Check Point) for registration and was institutionally quarantined at Chirangre,

Tura for five days. During this period, he was tested twice and both results

came out negative, after which he was released from institutional quarantine.

Serial No. 01

Regular List

2

4.

After his release from the quarantine centre, he was arrested on

14.07.2020 allegedly on an FIR being filed and registered against him for

violation of COVID protocol being Tura P.S Case No. 90(7)2020 u/s 188/47

IPC r/w section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The sections

involved being bailable, he was subsequently released on bail.

5.

The Investigating Officer then filed the Charge Sheet dated 10.08.2020

and G.R Case No. 66/2020 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tura

proceeded against the Petitioner herein.

6.

Terming the case against him as absolutely frivolous and false, the

Petitioner has therefore approached this Court with this instant application

under Sections 482/401 Cr.P.C with a prayer to set aside and quash the

proceedings in the said G.R Case No. 66/2020.

7.

Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner in his submission has

assailed the proceedings by firstly stating that the Charge Sheet was filed

without following due process of law, inasmuch as, the statement of the

Petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C has not yet been recorded till date inspite

of his appearance before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tura on

26.08.2020, 04.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 07.12.2020, 11.01.2021 and lastly on

12.02.2021.

8.

However, the thrust of the Petitioner’s contention is that the informant

who is said to have triggered the criminal process in question in the said G.R

Case No. 66/2020 has failed to get his statement recorded by the police and

has also denied to give his statement and as such, the Investigating Officer

(I/O) without any substantial evidence has filed the Charge Sheet, which

would put a big question mark on the prosecution’s attempt to prove the case.

9.

It is also submitted that since the statement of the informant was not

recorded by the I/O, therefore the reliability of the contents of the FIR is put

to doubt and cannot be sustained in law. Circumstantial evidence would also

only prove that the prosecution has no basis to secure conviction of the

3

accused/Petitioner. In this regard, the case of Gambhir v. State of

Maharashtra:(1982) 2 SCC 351 was cited by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner who has submitted that in the said case, the Apex court has held that

when the case rests on circumstantial evidence,