AB/17/2024 of DAVID RODBORN Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. on 2 September 2024

1. State of MeghalayaRepresented by theRepresented by the Secretary to the Govt. of MeghalayaHome (Police) DepartmentEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.Home (Police) DepartmentEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

2. Investigating Officer,Mawsynram Police StationEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.Mawsynram Police StationEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

3. Smti. X (Complainant)AndAnd

4. Miss Y (Victim)In Mawsynram P.S. Case No. 28 (08)2024 u/s 3 (a)/4 POCSO Act, 2012Through the Investigating OfficerMawsynram Police StationEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.In Mawsynram P.S. Case No. 28 (08)2024 u/s 3 (a)/4 POCSO Act, 2012Through the Investigating OfficerMawsynram Police StationEast Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

:::::

Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)

: Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, Adv.

For the Respondent(s):

Mr. N. Syngkon, GA.

Mr. J.N. Rynjah, GA. for R 1 & 2.None for R 3 & 4.

i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc.:

Yes/No

ii) Whether approved for publication in press:

Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, whohas submitted that the notice issued upon the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 havenot yet been affected, and as such, it is prayed that some more time may beallowed for such notice to be acknowledged.

2. Mr. N. Syngkon, learned GA appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent Nos. 1 & 2, on the other hand, has submitted that as directed bythis Court, the status report of the investigation as well as the records of theinvestigation conducted so far is hereby produced before this Court.

3. The learned GA further submits that on perusal of theInvestigating Officer’s report, it is seen that the statement of the survivorrecorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is very clear and unambiguous, inasmuchas, the survivor has stated, the details of how the incident occurred on 28.07.2024 when the applicant herein had invited her to his house and onreaching his house, he had closed the door and pulled the survivor to thebedroom of his wife and thereafter, he committed the act of sexual assaultupon the survivor, and has also threatened her to the extent that, if shereveals the incident to anyone, he will beat her. It was only a few days afterthe incident, on her parents noticing her forlorn attitude that she finallynarrated whatever happened to her, and thereafter, the FIR was filed on01.08. 2024.

4. The learned GA has also submitted that the medical report issuedafter the survivor was medically examined by a competent medical officer,would also indicate inter alia, that her hymen was not intact which wouldonly confirmed that the sexual assault upon the minor survivor had actuallytaken placed.

5. On these two grounds, that is, the statement of the survivor andthe medical report, the learned GA submits that the applicant cannot bereleased on bail or pre-arrest bail, but he has to be made to go through theprocess of custodial questioning. The fact that he has also threatened thesurvivor, and that being a neighbor of the survivor, would only strengthenthe case of the prosecution that the applicant is not deserving of any leniencyby this Court or by any due process of law.

6. Per contra, Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicanthas submitted that the FIR filed is on the basis of false information or factswhich could not be proved through relevant evidence, the medical report isalso not exhaustive and has no proof of any act of sexual assault by theapplicant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the applicantthat the applicant has already cooperated with the Investigating Authoritiesand has appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed. Therefore,considering the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, this application forgrant of pre-arrest bail may be allowed with any strict conditions that maybe imposed by this Court.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submission made by theparties and has also perused the application as well as the case diary filed bythe Investigating Officer and the latest compliance report filed by theInvestigating Officer. The facts as stated in the FIR have been reiterated bythe Investigating Officer in course of her investigation. Needless to say, theCourt would not go into the merits of this case at this point of time, suffice itto say that for consideration of any bail application, be it regular bail oranticipatory bail, it is incumbent upon this Court to look into the seriousnessof the alleged offence and the accompanying facts and circumstancesthereto, apart from any compelling circumstances related to the alleged offence. At this stage, it would be sufficient for this Court to consider thestatement of the survivor, who apparently is of a very minor age about 13years old or so. Prima facie, it would not be expected that a child of such agemay have any enmity or even have any idea of conspiracy against theapplicant/accused person. The narration of the survivor has to be accepted atface value at this point of time.

8. In view of the observations and findings made herein, theattendance of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 is no longer required.

9. Considering the fact that this is a case of an alleged crime againsta minor, this Court, at this juncture would agree with the submission of thelearned GA that the applicant has to go through the process of thoroughinvestigation. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed as devoid ofmerits. The interim protection given is hereby set aside and the ArrestingAuthorities are directed to take the applicant into custody for necessaryinterrogation.

10. Matter disposed of. No costs.

Judge