LAWS(MEGH)-2025-3-8

RAHUL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

Decided On March 03, 2025
RAHUL SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MEGHALAYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. N. Mozika, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that an FIR dtd. 9/7/2024 has been lodged against the petitioners before the Superintendent of Police, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, wherein the complainant therein had made a number of allegations against the petitioners, such allegations relating to the tenure when the petitioner (Shri. Gopal Krishna Gour) was in control of the management of the Bonded Warehouse of the complainant, and in course of such management, he has caused evasion of taxes, fraud and forgery in his personal capacity as well as through his son, the other petitioner herein. The vehicle belonging to the complainant which was utilized by him (Shri. Gopal Krishna Gour) during the relevant period was also missing and the same has not been handed over to the complainant till date. Accordingly, on such complaint being made, the FIR was registered as Khanapara P.S. Case No. 25 (07) 2024 under Sec. 381/408/120B/417/418/420/34 IPC.

(2.) As far as this matter is concerned, the learned Sr. counsel has submitted that this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioners and in the intervening period, Shri. Gopal Krishna Gour had approached the Investigating Officer (I/O) at the said Khanapara Police Station, but on 16/2/2025, when he went to the said Police Station, instead of his statement being recorded, he was actually detained in connection with some other cases which was registered at the Tura Police Station, and was subsequently taken into custody and sent to Tura and from there, was again forwarded to Ampati, South West Garo Hills in connection with yet another case where he was eventually arrested. However, as far as the case at Ampati is concerned, on an application made, Shri. Gopal Krishna Gour was granted bail the next day.

(3.) As far as this case is concerned, the learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the petitioners may be allowed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail with any conditions to be imposed, even to the extent of furnishing of bond, though the same is not required in law at this point of time.