SUMER vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.

2026:MLHC:1198
Serial No. 04
Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

BA. No. 89 of 2026


Date of Decision: 27.10.2026
Uploaded on: 27.10.2026
Sumer
S/o Balvant
Brother-in-law of the accused
R/o Choradi Aguni, Tehsil Chirawa,
P.O Dhingaria, P.S. Chirawa
District: Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan – 333033.
…….. Petitioner(s)

- Vs-


1. The State of Meghalaya, represented by
The learned Public Prosecutor.

2. Shri. X, son of XY, resident of XYZ
(Complainant)
..……. Respondent(s)


Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Ghosh, Adv.


For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.M. Pala, Assistant. PP vice
Mrs. N.G. Shylla, PP. for R 1.


i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No

1

2026:MLHC:1198
JUDGMENT (ORAL):

1. Heard Mr. P. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has
submitted that the main ground for preferring this application for grant of bail
on behalf of the accused, Debu Singh, who has been implicated in connection
with Rongjeng P.S. Case No. 31 (10) 2015 under Section 366/370/370-A/34 IPC
read with Section 5(l)/6 POCSO Act, and is now facing trial in the same case
before the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Garo Hills District,
Williamnagar, the case being registered as Special (POCSO) Case No. 9 of 2023,
is on the ground of prolonged incarceration of the accused person in judicial
custody having crossed more than 3 years of such custody.
2. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel is that
the accused person is also suffering from hernia and is desirous of getting
treatment outside the State of Meghalaya in the presence of his relatives, who
are residents of the State of Rajasthan. On these two grounds, the learned counsel
prays that bail may be granted to the accused person with any conditions as deem
fit and proper to be imposed by this Court.
3. Mr. A.M. Pala, learned GA appearing for the State respondent No. 1
has submitted that, if the Court in its discretion would allow the prayer made for
grant of bail, then strict conditions may be imposed, to ensure that the accused
would appear before the court and take part in the trial amongst others.
2

2026:MLHC:1198
4. This Court has considered the submission made, and is also aware
that the trial is ongoing, inasmuch as, as has been submitted that eight out of
fifteen prosecution witnesses have since been examined and discharged. Under
such circumstances, it stands to reason that no further custodial interrogation or
questioning is required as far as the accused is concerned.
5. The survivor and the complainant having been examined and
discharged, the question of threatening the witnesses or tampering the evidence
will not arise at this stage.
6. It is also well settled that prolonged custodial incarceration is not a
healthy trend since it would impinge upon the fundamental rights of a citizen of
this country, if the situation warrants, more often than not, it would be, but
appropriate for an accused to defend his case while on bail.
7. In view of the above, the prayer made in this petition is hereby
allowed.
8. The accused person is directed to be released immediately on the
following conditions:
i) That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence or
witnesses;
ii) That he shall attend court as and when called for;
iii) That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of India, except with
3

2026:MLHC:1198
due permission of the court concerned; and
iv) That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
9. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.

Judge


4

DARIKORDOR NARY
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 27-10-2026 15:38:54 IST
Verified