Meghalaya High Court
BA/46/2026 on 30 July, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:802
Serial No. 04 & 05
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA No. 45 of 2026 with
BA No. 46 of 2026
Date of Decision: 30.07.2026
BA No. 45 of 2026
Aboni Basumatari, 30 Years,
Son of Shri Anil Basumatari,
Permanent Resident of Ushapur,
Ushagaon, P.S- Joypur, P.O- Ushapur,
District- Dibrugarh, Pin-786614, Assam.
The present is at Nongmensong, Lankyrding,
Shillong, in the district of East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya
......Petitioner No.1
- Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya,
Represented by Public Prosecutor.
2. Office In-Charge,
Rynjah Police Station, Rynjah,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
3. XXX
Through Officier-In-charge
Rynjah Police station.
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya.
Permanent resident of Nongtalang Village,
West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
...... Respondents
BA No. 46 of 2026
Shri Kamal Thapa, 38 years,
Son of Shri Mohan Bahadur,
Resident of New Sheetla Colony,
Baarha Beegha Road, Sikandar Kampoo,
Lashkar, Gird, Ρ.Ο. Lashkar,
1
2026:MLHC:802
District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474001.
Present place of residence is at Nongmensong,
Lankyrding, Shillong, in the district of East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya.
......Petitioner No.2
- Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya,
Represented by Public Prosecutor.
2. Office In-Charge,
Rynjah Police Station, Rynjah,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
3. XXX
Through Officier-In-charge
Rynjah Police station.
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya.
Permanent resident of Nongtalang Village,
West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya.
...... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mrs. B.S. Goyal, Adv.
Mr. A. J. Hazarika, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Mr. E. R. Chyne, GA. for R 1 & 2.
Ms. P. Chettri, 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 AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. These two bail applications arose from a common case and with
2
2026:MLHC:802
identical facts and circumstances, as such, it is deemed proper and convenient to
pass a common judgment and order, which is done so herein.
2. From the records, it is seen that an FIR was lodged before the Officer
In-charge, Nongmynsong Police Outpost Shillong on 24.02.2026, from the said
FIR, it can be seen that the complainant has made an allegation involving sexual
assault perpetrated by two teachers of BDW International School, Langkyrding,
Shillong. The victim of such sexual assault is her son, aged about 5 years 8
months, who is studying in class K-1 of the said school. When she noticed the
strange behavior of her son, he narrated whatever has happened to him in the
school, where two teachers later identified as Dance teacher and Sports teacher
had committed the sexual assault, that is, penetrative sexual acts/assault in the
private part and inappropriate touching of private parts on four occasions. The
incident allegedly took place inside the school premises in the washroom/toilet
of the school.
3. On receipt of the said FIR, the police have registered the case as
Rynjah PS Case No. 47(2) 2026 under Section 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. On
investigation launched, the police have arrested the petitioners herein on
25.02.2026. Again, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was
filed on 24.04.2026, with the Investigating Officer (I/O) finding well established
prima facie case under Section 9(f)(l)(m)/10 of the POCSO Act, against the
accused/petitioners herein and they were made to stand trial before the
3
2026:MLHC:802
competent court of jurisdiction. It has been averred in this petition at para 32 that
the trial is yet to commence, that is, the evidence of the survivor is yet to be
recorded.
4. Heard Ms. B.S. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has
submitted that the allegations and the contents and findings of the investigation
as seen from the charge sheet have not revealed the actual and factual situation
of the case inasmuch as the offence said to have been committed by the
petitioners was committed within the school premises which is said to be under
CCTV surveillance, in fact it has been stated that there are about 250 CCTV’s
installed in the school, the auditorium area also being covered by such CCTV’s.
As to the allegations that the child was sexually assaulted in the washroom, the
learned counsel has submitted that this cannot be true since any child who needed
to use the washroom will be mandatorily accompanied by the lady caretaker and
no teacher or staff member are allowed to accompanied the child to the
washroom area.
5. The petitioner No. 2 (Kamal Thapa) being the dance teacher he was
engaged in dance practice in the auditorium from 09:00 am to 9:30 pm, as such,
from 12.02.2026 to 19.02.2026, therefore he could not have committed the
offence as alleged.
6. The fact that the said CCTV’s or CCTV footage has not been seized
by the I/O, since no such seizure was disclosed in the charge sheet, there is no
4
2026:MLHC:802
evidence to prove that the petitioners have committed the said offence, since
CCTV’s footage would have revealed the commission of such act if at all.
7. The learned counsel has also referred to the statement of the survivor
under Section 180 BNSS and has particularly pointed out that medical report
would show that there was no sign of use of force and no sign of anal penetration.
It is further submitted that from the statement of some of the victims that they
have not seen any sign of strange behavior as far as the survivor is concerned.
8. As to the petitioner No. 1 (Aboni Basumatari), the learned counsel
has submitted that he is a Sports’ teacher and on 13.02.2026 his duty was from
09:30 am to 10:10 am in the sports ground as such, unless there is clear evidence
of his involvement the same being confirmed by the CCTV’s footage, in the
absence of such footage it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 1 has committed
the said offence. Though, the learned counsel has candidly admitted that within
the 40 minutes’ period he may or could have committed the offence, but for the
lack of evidence.
9. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that petitioner No. 2
during the period of his custody, he was granted interim bail by the learned Trial
Court on the ground that he is to attend the funeral ceremony of his grandmother.
In compliance to the said interim bail the petitioner No. 2 has proceeded for the
said ceremony and after the same is completed he reported back to custody well
before the expiry of the period granted to him. This will only demonstrate the
5
2026:MLHC:802
sincerity of the accused/petitioner No. 2 and as such, if granted bail there is no
fear that he will abscond or tamper with the evidence.
10. However, the learned counsel has submitted that though the merits
of the case would not be gone into at this stage, what is pertinent is the fact that
the petitioners’ having been in custody for about 166 days or so, the trial not
proceeding speedily, the accused persons are therefore entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
11. The learned counsel has also referred to the case of Dataram Singh
v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22, wherein at para 5 the
Supreme Court has recalled what was decided in a number of cases as far as the
issue of bail is concerned to observed that “…grant of bail is the rule and refusal
is the exception…”. In this regard, the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Anurudh and Anr., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40, was also cited by
the learned counsel. Laying emphasis on certain paras in the said judgment,
being paras 9.1, 13 and 15.
12. It is, therefore, prayed that bail may be granted with any condition
that this Court may impose.
13. Per contra, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R.
Chyne, learned GA appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has opposed
the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that
from the materials on record including the FIR it has been clearly established
6
2026:MLHC:802
that there is prima facie evidence against the accused/petitioners herein.
14. The learned AAG has also referred to the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 BNSS found at page 71 of this petition, wherein in
the statement the victim/survivor has clearly related what has been perpetrated
on him by demonstrating how the act of sexual assault was committed, he has
also referred to the petitioner as afternoon sir, one wearing blue and black, he
has also stated that the said teacher had touched him four times.
15. The learned AAG has again submitted that since the charge sheet has
been filed pointing to the prima facie guilt of the accused/petitioners, the stage
of the case is fixed for consideration of charges, therefore it would be but prudent
for this Court to allow the evidence of the survivor to be recorded and thereafter
for the issue of bail to be taken up. In this regard, the case of Shri. Thosterning
Lyngdoh Nonglait v. State of Meghalaya, BA No. 7 of 2024, was referred to,
wherein at para 11 of the same, this Court in a bail application relating to a case
under the POCSO Act has observed as follows:
“11… However, while rejecting this application, this Court, would
direct the Trial Court to immediately frame the charges and to
examine the survivor at the earliest within a period of 3(three) weeks
from today. After the deposition of the survivor is recorded, the
petitioner/accused is at liberty to approach the Trial Court or this
Court for fresh consideration of the prayer for bail.”
16. Another case cited by the learned AAG is the case of Nihar
Ranjitbhai Barad v. State of Gujarat, wherein vide order dated 30.11.2022 in
7
2026:MLHC:802
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 18985 of 2022, also dealing with an
application of bail under the POCSO Act, the High Court of Gujarat at para 9
and also at para 10 has observed as follows:
“9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has
been provided under Articles 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect
children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the
POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual assault or
sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously
and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the
children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency
should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under
the POCSO Act.
10…. The exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against
humanity and the society. Therefore, the children and more
particularly the girl child deserve full protection and need greater
care and protection whether in the urban or rural areas….”
17. It is, therefore, prayed that this application for bail is devoid of merits
and the same is liable to be dismiss.
18. Ms. P. Chettri, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent
No. 3/complainant, has submitted that the complainant is the mother of the
survivor and in her statement made before the police as well as before the
Magistrate has stated the sequence of events of what had taken place as far as
her son’s is concerned, inasmuch as, when on 18.02.2026 he complaint of leg
pain, after coming from school, the complainant noticed that he felt tired when
he was at home, and it was only on 22.02.2026 that he narrated to her that he
was sexually abused by his teachers in his school toilet on four occasions, he
8
2026:MLHC:802
referred to the said teachers as afternoon sir blue and black, on the complainant
showing him the photographs her son (survivor) pointed to the picture of the
petitioners herein. As a result of the said sexual assault, the survivor is
traumatized and this has affected even this his studies, therefore, it is the prayer
of the learned Legal Aid Counsel that the prayer made in this application may
not be allowed.
19. This Court having heard learned counsel for the parties, the fact of
the case are not required to be repeated, what is apparent is that the petitioners
having been implicated in the case under the POCSO Act for the alleged
commission of sexual assault on the minor son aged about 5 years or so of the
respondent No. 3/complainant, the charge sheet also being filed with the
observation of the I/O that the prima facie case under the relevant provision of
the POCSO Act is found well established against the said accused petitioners,
they have not approach this Court by way of this application seeking grant of
bail.
20. This Court having considered the submission and contention of the
parties herein and on perusal of the petition and the annexures thereto, is also of
the view that on an appreciation of the statement of the survivor, a prima facie
case of sexual assault said to have been committed by the accused/petitioners
herein have been made out.
21. In this context, the judgment cited by the learned AAG that is, the
9
2026:MLHC:802
case of Nihar Ranjitbhai Barad (supra) is found relevant, where at para 12 of the
same the case of “the State of Kerala v. Mahesh, para 17 was quoted, the same
being reproduced herein below as:
“12. It is also beneficial to refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of The State of Kerala vs. Mahesh, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.17 has observed as under:
17. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010)
14 SCC 496, the Supreme Court laid down the parameters
for granting or refusing the grant of bail which are as under:
i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
ii. nature and gravity of the accusation;
iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
iv. Danger of the accused absconding or fleeting, if released
on bail; v. character, behavior, means, position and standing
of the accused;
vi. Likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. Reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; andviii. Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail.”
22. Again, as has been observed by the High Court of Gujarat in the case
of Nihar Ranjitbhai Barad (supra) any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment
to children should be viewed seriously. Taking into account the innocence of
such children who are not capable of understanding what is happening to them
and also the resultant effect of the trauma that follows such a vile act. If proven
10
2026:MLHC:802
to be true as far as this instant case is concerned, no leniency should show to the
perpetrators. Though, it would be a matter of evidence for the prosecution to
prove its case considering the nature and gravity of the offence alleged, this
Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners at this stage.
23. Accordingly, these two petitions are hereby dismissed as devoid of
merits.
24. Accordingly, petitions disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
30.07.2026
“Rishi Roy PS”
Signature Not Verified 11
Digitally signed by RISHI ROY
Date: 2026.07.30 20:46:38
IST
