1 Serial No. 06 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG BA No. 41 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 Smt. Dahun Syad D/o Smti. Blessida Syad Sister of the Accused namely Farme Syad @ Farminus Syad Resident of Lad-Lakadong East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya …Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Meghalaya, Represented by its Secretary, Home Police Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. 2. Officer-in-charge, Ladrymbai Police Outpost, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya 3. Officer-in-Charge, Khliehriat Police Station, East Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. G. Syngkrem, Adv. Mr. D. Chadong, Adv. 2026:MLHC:724 2026:MLHC:724 2 For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Abraham, GA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. An FIR dated 06.03.2026 has been lodged before the Officer-in- Charge, Ladrymbai Police Outpost, East Jaintia Hills District by the residents of Lakadong Ummat Village, East Jaintia Hills District. 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 at resorted to indiscriminate firing resulting in three of the villages 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 PS Case No. 104 of 2026 under Section 109 BNS, 2023. 4. Heard Mr. G. Syngkrem, learned counsel for the petitioner who is the sister of the accused person Farme Syad @ Farminus Syad who was 2026:MLHC:724 2026:MLHC:724 3 arrested in connection with Khliehriat P.S. Case No. 104 of 2026 under Section 109 BNS, 2023. The learned counsel has further submitted that the accused person is one of those persons named in the FIR, however, it is categorically stated herein that the accused person was not present at the place of occurrence on the said date since he was a Job Card holder and at the relevant point of time the accused was engaged in work undertaken under the MGNREGA and was involved in the construction of CC Road of Mary Lyngkha at Lad Lakadong which is about 10-11 kms or so from the place of occurrence. To this effect the attendance sheet of Muster Role has been annexed as Annexure - 3 in the petition to authenticate the claim. 5. Per contra, Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA has strongly opposed to the prayer made in this petition 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 caused injuries to some of those present has not been denied by the accused person. The fact that in the FIR, the complainants have also specifically named some of those perpetrators, including the accused person herein would only strengthen the prosecution case that there are indeed eye witnesses who have seen what the accused person in question and others have done on that day. 6. The learned GA has also produced copy of the case diary and has led this Court to the entries made by the Investigating Officer (I/O), including the recording of statement of witnesses who have identified the accused person herein as one of those persons who was armed with a machete at that point of time. Accordingly, under such circumstances the role of the accused person in the said accident cannot be ruled out, the prayer made in this petition may not be allowed, submits the learned GA. 2026:MLHC:724 2026:MLHC:724 4 7. Contending that the authenticity of the attendance sheet needs to be reviewed, since the authorities who have authenticated the said attendance sheet are also the co-accused in this case, as such, there is always the possibility of the same being manipulated, therefore, this Court may not place reliance on the said attendance sheet, submits the learned GA. 8. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsels for the parties and has also perused the petition and the case diary produced. As has been indicated, it is said that on 03.03.2026 at about 10:30 – 11:00 am, when a number of people consisting members of 2(two) opposing groups met at the site of the inspection, tempers frays and under such tense situation an altercation took place, firearms may have been used resulting in injuries sustained by those involved. The perpetrators being the accused herein and others. 9. The main ground relied upon by the accused person in question is that he was not present at the place of occurrence on the day the incident occurred but was at a place called Lad-Lakadong village which is about 10- 11 kilometres from the PO doing construction work of a CC road under MGNREGA Scheme. In his statement, before the I/O he has stated the same. 10. The prosecution has maintained that there are eye witnesses who have seen the accused person at the scene of the crime wielding a machete, though none of the eye witnesses have said that they saw the accused person using the firearm. 11. In this regard, it may not be out of place to mention that in a similar case concerning the said incident which took place on 03.03.2026, the contents of the FIR would show that the complainants have specifically 2026:MLHC:724 2026:MLHC:724 5 named a number of persons who are said to be the main culprits being responsible for the melee. However, as regard one or two of those named in the FIR, they have approached this Court on a plea of alibi, stating that they were not present at the place of occurrence, but were at a hospital in Shillong attending to their ailing mother. In due course this assertion proved correct, thereby creating a doubt as to the credibility of the account of such eye witnesses. 12. In the case of the accused herein, having said that he was not present at the place of occurrence on the said date, at this point of time the benefit of doubt would be given to him, subject to the final outcome of investigation. 13. Since the liberty of a person is valued, any attempt to undermine the reputation of a citizen by way of a false allegation, such attempts have to be thwarted. Therefore, in case of an allegation, criminal in nature, utmost care has to be taken to ensure adherence to such liberty, since an arrest of an innocent person would greatly affect his or her personality, dignity and standing in society. This does not mean that the law enforcement authorities are prevented from carrying on investigation to find out the truth, even to the involvement of such a person alleged against. But the same has to be in due procedure. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, at para 90, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community…”. 14. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner herein. 2026:MLHC:724 2026:MLHC:724 6 15. Accordingly, in the event of the arrest, the accused person herein is directed to be released on bail on following conditions: i. That he shall not abscond or tamper with any evidence or witnesses; ii. That he shall appear before the concerned court as and when required; iii. That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Meghalaya without prior permission from the concerned court; iv. He shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the competent court of jurisdiction. 16. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Judge Meghalaya 15.07.2026 “Tiprilynti–PS” 2026:MLHC:724 2026:MLHC:724 Digitally signed by TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR Date: 2026.07.15 19:36:00 IST