Shillong, Sept 3: A complaint alleging assault by an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer in Shillong has come under scrutiny amid an ongoing probe into the alleged diversion of development funds of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC).
The complaint was submitted on behalf of Sansilstone Sangma by advocate Niksrang Ch. Marak. However, the circumstances surrounding the complaint, including the advocate’s family connection to a key accused in the GHADC case, have raised questions about its timing and possible implications for the investigation.
According to information available for verification, Niksrang Ch. Marak is the younger son of Ismail R. Marak and Pratibha R. Marak. Ismail Marak is among those being investigated in the GHADC funds case, while the alleged diversion of funds involving him and his wife is under the ED’s Shillong office.
The family connection, by itself, does not establish that the assault allegation is false or motivated. Any such conclusion would require an examination of the evidence, including the chronology of the alleged incident, medical records, CCTV footage and witness accounts.
Why was Sansilstone Sangma examined?
Sangma was reportedly called by the ED for examination and recording of his statement in connection with funds he allegedly received from Pratibha R. Marak.
The line of inquiry reportedly concerned whether the money received by Sangma was linked to GHADC development funds allegedly diverted through contractors to Pratibha Marak, and how the funds were subsequently used.
The examination therefore formed part of the wider money trail being investigated by the agency.
Complaint does not necessarily mean FIR
There is also a distinction between the complaint and an FIR.
While some reports have described the matter as an FIR against the ED officer, information available for verification indicates that a complaint was submitted at the concerned police beat house and that an FIR had not been registered as of the latest information available.
The FIR status needs to be confirmed independently with the jurisdictional police.
Questions have also been raised over the authorisation under which the complaint was submitted on Sangma’s behalf. The material available for verification does not contain a signed authorisation from Sangma appointing Niksrang Ch. Marak to represent him. Whether a separate authorisation exists or Sangma subsequently confirmed the complaint remains to be established.
ED searches preceded complaint
The complaint comes months after the ED’s Shillong Sub-Zonal Office searched five premises on December 4, 2025, as part of its investigation into alleged misappropriation of GHADC development funds.
In a press release issued on December 8, the agency identified Ismail Marak, Kubon Sangma and Nikseng Sangma as the main accused.
The ED alleged that development funds were released as advances to contractors and subsequently diverted to Ismail Marak and his wife despite the sanctioned works allegedly not being executed. Documents and digital devices were seized during the searches, while bank accounts were also frozen.
The agency’s action followed its investigation into the alleged misuse of grants received by the GHADC.
₹40 lakh property attached
The case involves grant assistance of ₹28.66 crore received by the GHADC, including ₹1 crore earmarked for 49 development projects in the 16-Asanang constituency.
According to the ED’s findings reported at the time, 60% of the sanctioned project funds were allegedly released as advances, contrary to applicable rules.
The agency subsequently traced alleged proceeds of crime amounting to ₹52.60 lakh. This included ₹19.60 lakh allegedly received in cash by Ismail R. Marak and ₹33 lakh allegedly transferred through banking channels to his wife, Pratibha Marak, from contractors Nikseng Marak and Kubon Sangma.
The ED later provisionally attached an immovable property valued at ₹40 lakh in Ismail Marak’s name. Bank balances totalling about ₹16.38 lakh were also reportedly frozen.
Timing under scrutiny
The sequence of events has prompted questions over whether the complaint could have a bearing on the ongoing investigation or be used to cast doubt on the ED officer’s role.
However, such a motive remains an allegation and cannot be established merely on the basis of the complainant’s family connections.
The immediate questions for investigators are whether the alleged assault took place as claimed, when it occurred, whether there were independent witnesses or CCTV evidence, and whether the complaint was lodged promptly and with proper authorisation.
The police investigation and any subsequent legal proceedings will be crucial in determining both the assault allegation and the circumstances in which the complaint was made.
Attempts to contact advocate Niksrang Ch. Marak for his response were unsuccessful. His response was not available at the time of filing this report.
