07.04.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 7 April, 2026

    0
    32
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Meghalaya High Court

    Date Of Decision: 07.04.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 7 April, 2026

    Author: W. Diengdoh

    Bench: W. Diengdoh

                                                                            2026:MLHC:302
    
    
    
    Serial No. 12
    Regular List
    
    
                              HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                                    AT SHILLONG
    
    BA. No. 13 of 2026
                                                             Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
    Shri. Sonu Kumar,
    S/o Annu Pandit.
    Resident of Arunachal Bhawan,
    Cleve Colony, Shillong, East Khasi Hills
    District, Meghalaya - 793003.
                                                            ........ Petitioner/Applicant
                                          - Vs-
    
    1.     State of Meghalaya represented by
           The Public Prosecutor, Government of Meghalaya.
    
    2.     X,
           R/o Nongshilliang, Rynjah,
           Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,
           Meghalaya - 793014.
                                                            ......... Respondents
    Coram:
                    Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
    
    Appearance:
    For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)   :           Mr. P. Yobin, Adv.
                                                  Ms. B.L. Lyngkhoi, Adv.
    
    For the Respondent(s)             :           Mr. R. Gurung, GA.
                                                  Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA. for R 1.
                                                  Ms. A.D. Syiem, Adv. for R 2.
    i)     Whether approved for reporting in                          Yes/No
           Law journals etc.:
    
    
                                                  1
                                                                     2026:MLHC:302
    
    
    
    
    ii)   Whether approved for publication
          in press:                                           Yes/No
    
    
                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

    1. Heard Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has

    submitted that an FIR has been filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 to the

    SPONSORED

    Officer-in-Charge, Laitumkhrah Police Station, to the effect that a complaint has

    been made against the accused person, Shri. Annu Pandit, who is said to have

    sexually assaulted the minor daughter of the complainant upon which, on receipt

    of the said FIR, a police case was registered being Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No.

    08 of 2026 under Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act.

    2. Investigation was carried out, and on completion of the same, the

    Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet on 13.02.2026, finding a prima

    facie case well-established against the accused person herein for having

    committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault on the said minor, for which

    he is made to stand trial and answer to the charge under Section 5(l)(m)

    punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

    3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

    that the stage of the case before the Trial Court is for consideration of charges

    with charges not yet framed.

    4. The learned counsel has also submitted that, at this point of time,

    2
    2026:MLHC:302

    even, on perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is apparent that the offence alleged

    to have been committed by the accused person is not so serious, and also the fact

    that investigation has been completed, therefore, there is no requirement for any

    further interrogation or questioning of the accused person. He further submits

    that, the accused person being an old man of about 57 years old, and, if enlarged

    on bail, he is willing to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

    Therefore, prayer is made for grant of bail.

    5. Ms. A.D. Syiem, learned counsel appearing for the

    complainant/respondent No. 2 has submitted that, as instructed, the complainant

    has no objection to the prayer made, and has further submitted that, if enlarged

    on bail, strict conditions may be imposed upon the accused person.

    6. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the prosecution, has

    strongly objected to the prayer made, and has submitted that, on perusal of the

    materials on record, including the allegation made against the accused person,

    what is noticed is that an act of sexual assault has been perpetrated upon a minor

    girl only about 8 years old, as such, if enlarged on bail, there is every possibility

    for the accused person to intimidate or threaten the witnesses, including the

    survivor.

    7. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the learned GA submits

    that bail may not be granted at this stage.

    3

    2026:MLHC:302

    8. This Court has taken note of the submission of the parties and also

    the facts as has been brought out in this petition through the many annexures

    attached thereto. On perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the allegation made is that

    the accused person has committed sexual assault by inappropriately touching the

    private parts of the survivor. This incident is said to have occurred some time on

    10.12.2025, though the same was reported by the survivor to her

    mother/complainant only on 14.01.2026. However, on perusal of the statement

    made under Section 180 BNSS by the survivor, it is noted that she has stated that

    the accused person had committed the same type of offence about four times.

    9. The learned GA has also pointed out that at page 79 of this petition

    which is a copy of the medical report of the medical examination upon the

    survivor, it has been indicated that her hymen is not intact, meaning that sexual

    assault has indeed taken place.

    10. Though, this Court would not go into the merits of the case since the

    same would be agitated upon by the parties before the Trial Court, however,

    considering the fact that the accused person is a man of about 57 years old and

    the survivor is just 8 years old, irrespective of the nature of the offence, the fact

    that he is said to have sexually assaulted her, would prima facie indicate a

    depraved mindset. On consideration of this aspect of the matter, this Court, at

    this point of time, is not inclined to concede to the prayer made herein.

    4

    2026:MLHC:302

    11. As has been submitted by the learned GA, it would be prudent for the

    matter to proceed and the statement and evidence of the survivor to be duly

    recorded by the Trial Court, whereupon, on her being discharged, the accused

    person may approach the appropriate court with a fresh prayer for grant of bail.

    12. In view of the above, this petition is hereby dismissed as devoid of

    merits, the same is disposed of. No costs.

    Judge

    Signature Not Verified 5
    Digitally signed by
    DARIKORDOR NARY
    Date: 2026.04.07 18:47:30 IST



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here