SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 131

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J
KUTMON SYAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. – Respondent
AB. No. 16 of 2026



Important Points

Anticipatory bail may be granted when there is a plausible claim of alibi and doubts exist regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses, emphasizing that personal liberty must be protected against the ignominy of arrest unless strictly necessary for investigation.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.109, S.118(2), S.191(3), S.61(2), S.132, S.3(5)
Arms Act: S.27

Headnote

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 109, 118(2), 191(3), 61(2), 132, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case arose from a land dispute between two villages during a spot inspection for a Four Lane expressway, which escalated into violence involving firearms and machetes, resulting in injuries to several villagers. The petitioner claimed a plea of alibi, asserting he was not present at the scene of the occurrence. The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail despite eye-witness statements identifying him as being armed with a machete. The court observed that in similar cases related to the same incident, alibi pleas had been proven correct, casting doubt on the credibility of the eye-witnesses. The court reasoned that the liberty of a citizen is highly valued and that an arrest based on potentially false allegations can cause irreparable harm to a person's dignity and standing in society. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner herein.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. A.D. Syiem, Mr. G. Syngkrem
For the Respondents: Mr. N.D. Chullai, Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih

Table of Content
1. factual background of the land dispute and the resulting criminal charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. competing arguments regarding the petitioner's presence at the scene and eye-witness identification. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. evaluation of the alibi plea and the credibility of prosecution witnesses. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. protection of personal liberty and the granting of bail subject to conditions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. An FIR dated 03.03.2026 has been lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Ladrymbai Police Outpost, East Jaintia Hills District by two persons namely, Shri Dawanoo Rymbai, Waheh Shnong, Lama Village and Shri Charling Syrti, Secretary, Lama Village.

2. The contents of the FIR speak of a dispute between two villages i.e. Lama Village and Lakadong Ummat Village in the East Jaintia Hills District, indicating therein that two groups of villagers of these respective villages are involved in such dispute, which land is the subject matter of acquisition by the concerned authorities for construction of a Four Lane expressway.

3. From the FIR, it is also revealed that the office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, had fixed 03.03.2026 as the date for spot inspection of the said disputed land for the purpose of acquiring land for construction of Four Lane expressway. Accordingly, at about 10:30 - 11:00 am or so, a number of people were present there. Some of those present, specifically named in the said FIR have been alleged to have come to the spot armed with firearms and proceeding towards the crowd and resorted to indiscriminate firing resulting in three of the villagers of Lama village sustaining injuries on their bodies, for which they had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. Accordingly, the police have registered the FIR as Khliehriat P.S. Case No. 104 (3) 2026 under Section 109 /118(2)/191(3)/61(2)/132/3(5) BNS, read with Section 27 Arms Act.

4. Heard Ms. A.D. Syiem, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the petitioner is one of those persons named in the FIR, however, it is categorically stated herein that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence on the said date, since he was not an office bearer of the Dorbar Shong of Lakadong village nor does he have any relation to the disputed land. In fact, on the said day of occurrence, he was engaged in harvesting/cultivating betel nut, leaves and broom sticks.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that a false allegation has been made against him in the FIR dated 03.03.2026 with the purpose to stigmatize him and also to cause irreparable harm to his dignity and standing as a responsible member of the society, as such, being apprehensive of imminent arrest, he has preferred this instant application with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. The learned counsel has also submitted that in this regard, an FIR dated 06.03.2026 was lodged before the In-charge, Ladrymbai Police Outpost, by some of the residents of Lakadong Ummat village, wherein, they have detailed the action of some of those who were present on the said date at the place of occurrence, the names being noted at para 11 of the said FIR, the said persons being responsible of trespassing and use of criminal force, including rioting with deadly weapons and fire arms which has caused terror and fear on those present, including minor children. Therefore, since there are allegations and cross allegations made, the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in the case.

7. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA appearing for the State respondent, has strongly opposed the prayer made, and has stated that the fact that there was altercation at the place of occurrence (PO) on the said dated that is, 03.03.2026, wherein as a result thereof, machete and firearms have been employed to cause injuries to some of those present, has not been denied by the petit

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top