Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 15.05.2025 vs State Of Meghalaya on 15 May, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:393
Serial No. 02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA No. 14 of 2025
Date of Decision: 15.05.2025
Shri Daud Peterson,
R/o Umiam Project Sumer,
Ri Bhoi District
Meghalaya
......Accused person
Through:
Smti. Balbinder Singh
W/o Shri. Daud Peterson,
R/o Umiam Project Sumer,
Ri Bhoi District
Meghalaya
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Meghalaya
Represented its Secretary (Home) Police Department
Govt. of Meghalaya
2. In Charge, WPSI
Umiam P.S
Ri Bhoi District
3. Smti. "X"
(Complainent)
C/o Umiam P.S.
Ri Bhoi, Meghalaya
......Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
1
2025:MLHC:393
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, Adv.
Ms. A. Chettri, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Khan, P.P with
Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. P.P
Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. P.P
Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, GA (For R 1 & 2)
Ms. S. Nongsiej, Legal Aid Counsel
(For R 3)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. K. Khan, learned P.P for the State and Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned
Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent/complainant.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
this application has been filed with a prayer for release of the accused
person, Shri. Daud Peterson on bail, the accused being arrested on
27.11.2024 in connection with Nongpoh Women P.S. Case No. 72(10)2024
under Section 7/8 and 9(m)/10/11(iii)/12 POCSO Act.
3. The registration of the said case being the outcome of an FIR
lodged before the Umiam Police Station by the complainant/respondent No.
3 to the extent that her minor daughter aged about 9 years was molested by
the accused person at his residence on 27.10.2024 when her minor daughter
had gone to his residence. This incident was known to the complainant and
her husband only on 25.11.2024 when the father of the minor realized that
2
2025:MLHC:393
on his mobile phone is found certain adult sites and on inquiry about it from
his minor daughter, she revealed that it was the accused person who has
shown her the video and has eventually molested her by touching her
inappropriately in certain parts of the body. The accused person had even
gone to the extent of seeking sexual intercourse with the said minor child.
On the basis of such FIR, the accused person was taken into custody and is
still in custody till date.
4. This application has been preferred by the wife of the accused
person who has approached this Court, firstly, on the ground that the case
against the accused person has already proceeded to the stage of trial with
the charge sheet filed and one witness who is the survivor being examined
and discharged, about six more witnesses remained to be examined in this
case. This being the case, it is submitted that the trial may not be able to be
completed in a few months’ time and for such prolong period, the accused
person may be allowed to be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned counsel has also submitted that on perusal of the
materials on record, including the charge sheet wherein is found the
statement of the survivor recorded under Section 183 BNSS and compared
to her deposition in court as PW1, it is seen that improvement has been
made as far as her narration is concerned to the extent that apart from the
allegation that the inappropriate video content was shown to her, the
statement of the survivor that the accused has also inserted his finger in her
vagina is not a fact inasmuch as if such an act has been committed it would
have resulted in her hymen to be torn which is not the case if one go through
the relevant medical report of the survivor.
3
2025:MLHC:393
6. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is also enmity
between the family of the accused person and the family of the complainant
and as such, false allegation cannot be ruled out. The antecedent of the
accused person has also been stressed inasmuch as the learned counsel has
submitted that the accused is a respectable person in the community who is
also a Church elder and it is not expected of him to exhibit such behaviour
as has been alleged and as such, under such circumstances, the accused
person may also be enlarged on bail with any conditions that this Court may
deem fit and proper to impose.
7. Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned Legal Aid counsel for the
respondent/complainant has submitted that the complainant is strongly
opposing to the prayer made by the petitioner since the whole incident had
taken a toll on the survivor wherein whenever she recalls the incident, she
would exhibit fear and is traumatized by such recollection. The fact that the
accused person is also a neighbour of the family of the survivor is another
aspect to be considered since if enlarged on bail, there is every possibility
that the accused would come into contact with the survivor and her family
members. On this ground, it is prayed that this petition may not be allowed.
8. Mr. K. Khan, learned P.P appearing for the State respondent has
submitted that on the basis of the materials on record and the evidence of
the survivor, it is clear that a prima facie case has been made out against the
accused person and as to the allegation of delay in the trial, since the date
when the accused person was arrested till date, only about six months or so
have gone by, accordingly the learned P.P has also opposed the prayer made
by the petitioner.
4
2025:MLHC:393
9. This Court has gone through the petition and the documents
annexed, including the deposition of the survivor, copy of which has been
produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner today. Facts as stated
above, may not be repeated. What is to be considered is the fact that the
case against the accused person is under trial. Admittedly, there are seven
prosecution witnesses to be examined. The survivor being one of them, her
deposition has been recorded by the trial court and she was discharged.
10. The allegation made in the FIR and from the statement of the
survivor herself, it would reveal that such allegations are serious in nature
irrespective of the ultimate period of sentence, if convicted, which
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner would be below 7 years
or so. The fact remains that any allegation of crime or offences against
children and women has to be taken seriously, granted this Court at this
stage would not venture to appreciate the evidence on record as that would
be the duty of the trial court. However, on the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the trial has been delayed inordinately, such
contention would hold no water, since as has been indicated, even from the
date of his arrest till date, the period undergone is only six months or so.
The trial court has not shown any neglect in its duty as far as the
proceedings is concerned since the provision of Section 35 of the POCSO
Act has been taken note of by the trial court, such provision being that the
period of recording of evidence of a child and disposal of the case should
ordinarily be done so within 30 days and trial to be completed within 1(one)
year. Accordingly, this portion of the submission cannot be accepted by this
Court.
11. As to the apprehension of the complainant, as far as proximity of
5
2025:MLHC:393
the accused person with the survivor and her family members are
concerned, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if
enlarged on bail he will relocate himself and not come into contact with the
survivor though taken note of, such submission lack sufficient details.
12. The learned counsel has also made a reference to an order passed
by this Court in the case of Bashanbha Syngkli v. State of Meghalaya
represented through Secretary and Commissioner and Ors. reported in 2024
SCC Online Megh 470, particularly at para 5 wherein this Court
considering the facts and circumstances of the case therein had granted bail
on the ground of delay in trial. However, as pointed out, this authority
would not come to the aid of the petitioner since the case in hand has just
proceeded over a period of 6(six) months or so. Under such circumstances,
this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make a
case for grant of bail.
13. Accordingly, petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR 6
Date: 2025.05.15 18:29:28 IST