SENGNE MARAK vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.

2026:MLHC:1038
Serial No. 03
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA No. 63 of 2026
Date of decision: 15.09.2026

Smti Sengne Marak
Wife of Setish Sangma
Resident of 56, Halwa Attong
Baghmara – 794102
South Garo Hills
Meghalaya
…… Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented by its Secretary
Home (Police) Department
Government of Meghalaya
Shillong, Meghalaya

2. XYZ
Daughter of QRS
Resident of ABC
South Garo Hills District
Meghalaya
…… Respondents

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

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. M.F. Qureshi, Adv.
Mr. L. Koch, Adv.
Mr. R.T. Sangma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, Addl. P.P for R 1
Ms. P. Chettri, LAC for R 2

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1

2026:MLHC:1038
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioner,
who has submitted that an FIR was filed before the Officer-in-Charge,
Baghmara Women Police Station, South Garo Hills District on 25.09.2025
by the respondent No. 2 herein. The contents of the FIR would reveal that
an allegation has been made that the brother of the petitioner herein, that is,
Taseng G. Momin had tried to rape the complainant and on being denied he
had severely stabbed her by a sharp knife. This happened at about 6:30 AM
on 25.09.2025.
2. The assailant had also threatened to kill the complainant as
well as the family members. On receipt of the said FIR Baghmara Women
P.S Case No. 13 of 2025 under Section 62/74/75(2)/79/118(i)/109(2)/351
(3) BNS was registered. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the
accused/brother of the petitioner was arrested by the police on the same day
that is, 25.09.2025 and till date he is still in custody. In the meantime, the
investigation in the matter is completed, chargesheet filed with the IO
finding that a prima facie case well established against the accused and he
was made to stand trial before the court. There has been an inordinate delay
in the proceedings before the Trial Court inasmuch as it was only on
17.06.2026 that the charges have been framed against the accused person
2

2026:MLHC:1038
and till date none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.
For this delay not attributable to the accused person, he should therefore not
be prejudiced as far as his continued incarceration in custody is concerned.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel that having been in
custody for almost a year, the stage of investigation having been completed,
therefore, the accused person may be enlarged on bail to allow him to
pursue the case before the Trial Court in a free and fair atmosphere.
4. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that admittedly
the complainant/prosecutrix was the ex-wife of the accused person in
question and as such, though the relationship in course of the marriage has
turned sour, nevertheless, there is no intention on the part of the accused
person to cause harm to the complainant/prosecutrix except for the fact that
because of the tense situation there was a scuffle resulting in the prosecutrix
being stabbed, though medical evidence would show that the injury
sustained as a result thereof are simple in nature. The learned counsel has,
however, submitted that the accused person may be enlarged on bail with
any conditions that this Court may deem fit and proper to impose.
5. Mr. H. Abraham learned Addl. PP. appearing for the State
respondent has opposed the prayer made and has submitted that the
complainant/prosecutrix has clearly stated in her statement that the accused
3

2026:MLHC:1038
person had not only stabbed her on her chest three times but has also
threatened to kill her and her family members. Because of such threat there
is an apprehension on the part of the complainant/prosecutrix that if
enlarged on bail the accused person may cause harm to her. It is finally
submitted that this petition being devoid of merits, the same may be
dismissed.
6. Ms. P. Chettri learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for
complainant/prosecutrix has in the same vein concurred with the
submission of the learned Addl. PP. and has further submitted that the
complainant/prosecutrix was not only sexually assaulted by the accused
person but was also physically assaulted where he has indeed stabbed her
chest with a sharp weapon (knife) and for which, one of the charges framed
against the accused person is that for attempt to murder.
7. It is also the submission of the learned LAC that evidence of
the prosecution witnesses has not been recorded so far including that of the
complainant/prosecutrix and that the court has fixed the matter tomorrow,
that is 16.09.2026 for recording of evidence. Under such circumstances, it
is prayed that this petition may not be allowed.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and
has given due consideration to the submission made. The facts as has been
4

2026:MLHC:1038
stated hereinabove need not be repeated. However, it is noted that the case
is at this stage of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, more
particularly the evidence of the complainant/prosecutrix has not yet been
recorded.
9. As to the contention of the parties that the accused person had
used force against the complainant/prosecutrix by stabbing her in the chest
which is a serious offence for if such an act has been actually successful, it
may have caused death or serious injury to the victim. However, in the
opinion of this Court, these are matter of evidence for which the merits of
the case of the parties will be examined by the Trial Court.
10. The fact that the accused person has been incarcerated in
custody for quite some time, the formalities of investigation, filing of
chargesheet and framing of charges having already been completed, there
is no reason why the accused should be kept in custody for any longer
period of time. It stands to reason that even if enlarged on bail the accused
person would be bound by suitable and sufficient conditions to keep him in
check.
10. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that at this point of
time the accused person is to be enlarged on bail. It is hereby directed that
5

2026:MLHC:1038
the accused person in question be released on bail on the following
conditions:
i. That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence or
witnesses;
ii. That he shall appear before the concerned court as and
when called for;
iii. That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Meghalaya
during the pendency of trial without prior permission
from the concerned court;
iv. That he shall not come into contact with the survivor in
any manner during the pendency of the trial;
v. That he shall relocate himself to a place far from the
residence of the survivor during the pendency of the trial;
and
vi. That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹
20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only with one surety
of like amount to the satisfaction of the competent court
of jurisdiction.
11. Petition disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
6

2026:MLHC:1038
15.09.2026
Rishi Roy, PS
“ ”
7

RISHI ROY
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 15-09-2026 19:44:35 IST
Verified