Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA. No. 15 of 2024
Date of Decision: 31.05.2024
Shri. Bashanbha Syngkli,
S/o Shri. Bisting Lyngdoh
R/o Patharkhmah ::::: Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Meghalaya
Represented through Secretary
And Commissioner, Home Police
Department, Government of
Meghalaya.
2. Superintendent of Police
Shillong, Ri-Bhoi District,
Meghalaya.
3. Smti. Diana Kalweng,
W/o (L) Nobarsingh Thangkhiew
R/o Wahsynon, Jirang,
P.S. Nongpoh, Ri-Bhoi District,
Meghalaya. ::::: Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. S. Nongsiej, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, GA. with
Mr. J. Thabah, GA. for R 1 & 2.
None for R 3.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
1
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned counsel for the petitioner, who
has submitted that the petitioner is an accused in connection with Special
(POCSO) Case No. 145 of 2022 pending before the Court of the learned
Special Judge (POCSO), Nongpoh, Ri-Bhoi District.
2. The learned counsel has submitted that affidavit of service as
regard the issuance of notice upon the respondent No. 3 has been filed to
indicate that the notice has been affectively occasioned, however, the
respondent No. 3 has failed to appear before this Court today. Accordingly,
on prayer made, this matter shall proceed ex-parte against the respondent
No. 3.
3. It is the case of the petitioner/accused that on a complaint filed
by the respondent No. 3 vide FIR dated 09.07.2022 with the allegations
that the petitioner/accused has committed an act of sexual assault upon the
minor daughter, the police has taken cognizance of the said FIR, and has
registered the same as Women P.S. Case No. 36 (7) 2022 under Section
2
5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
4. On investigation launched and the same duly completed, the
Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet finding that a prima facie
case is found well established against the three accused persons including
the petitioner herein. The learned Trial Court, on consideration of the said
charge sheet, has caused registration of a regular case being Special
(POCSO) Case No. 145 of 2022 and the case is now pending for
examination of prosecution witnesses.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
petitioner/accused was arrested in connection with the said case on
10.07.2022 and is still in custody till date. Again, it is submitted that the
charge sheet was filed on 07.10.2022 and the learned Trial Court has
framed charges against the accused persons on 22.05.2023. There are about
11(eleven) prosecution witnesses who are to be examined, however, since
the date when the charges have been framed, till date, that is, about a year
or so, no witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, if not for
anything else, but for the delay caused in the trial, the petitioner/accused is
entitled to be enlarged on bail to allow him to defend his case, further
submits the learned counsel. It is prayed that this application may be
3
allowed and the petitioner/accused may be enlarged on bail with any
conditions to be imposed by this Court.
6. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the State respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, but has however left it to the discretion of this Court to pass
necessary orders in this regard.
7. This Court, on consideration of the submission made, and on
perusal of this application, would agree that the alleged offence are serious
in nature and the petitioner/accused in normal circumstances, would not
have been allowed to be enlarged on bail, considering the fact that the
survivor is a minor. However, on perusal of Section 35 of the POCSO Act,
what can be understood is that when the court has taken cognizance of the
matter and the trial has started, it would be incumbent upon the Trial Court
to complete the proceedings as far as possible within a period of one year
from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. However, in the peculiar
circumstances involved in the case, when even after a period of more than
one year since the date when the charges were framed, no witnesses have
been examined, thereby, a delay in the proceedings has occurred in the
opinion of this Court. On this ground alone, this Court is inclined to allow
4
the prayer made by the petitioner/accused.
8. The petitioner/accused Shri. Bashanbha Syngkli is hereby
directed to be released on bail on the following conditions that:
i) He shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence and
witnesses;
ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the State of
Meghalaya without due prior permission from the
Investigating Officer or the court concerned;
iii) He shall appear before the court as and when required;
iv) 30,000/-
He shall personally bind himself on a bond of ₹
(Rupees thirty thousand) only with one surety of like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
v) He shall have no contact whatsoever with the survivor as
far as the residence is concerned. It would be proper for
the petitioner/accused to relocate his residence far away
from the residence of the survivor for the ensuing part of
these proceedings before the Trial Court.
9. Needless to say, any breach of the conditions stated
5
hereinabove, would allow the prosecution to file an application for
cancellation of the bail before the Trial Court.
10. In view of the above-noted directions, bail application stands
disposed of. No costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
31.05.2024
“D. Nary, PS”
6