By Shazia Siddiqui

The Meghalaya High Court recently addressed a bail application concerning a case involving the alleged sexual assault of a minor. The matter arose from an FIR filed by the mother of the victim, accusing three individuals, including the petitioner, under Sections 5(g) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The petitioner sought bail, citing the delay in the trial process, as stipulated in Section 35 of the POCSO Act, which mandates completion of trials within one year.

In response to the bail plea, Justice W. Diengdoh, presiding over the High Court, deliberated on the gravity of the allegations. The court emphasized the seriousness of sexual offenses against minors and stressed that bail decisions must consider the nature of the offense and public interest, especially in cases involving vulnerable victims like children. Despite arguments from the petitioner regarding prolonged incarceration and constitutional rights under Article 21, the court underscored that the determination of guilt hinges on evidence and procedural fairness during trial.

Justice Diengdoh pointed out the statutory obligation under Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, which mandates that trials ideally conclude within a year. However, the court acknowledged that practical challenges and circumstances affecting trial pace fall under the purview of the trial court. While recognizing concerns about trial delays, the High Court declined immediate bail but issued directives aimed at expediting the trial process.

The court’s decision included instructions for the trial court to promptly frame charges and examine the survivor within three weeks. This procedural step was deemed necessary before the petitioner could seek reconsideration of bail. By emphasizing the importance of expeditious trial proceedings, the High Court aimed to balance the rights of the accused with the imperative of justice, particularly in cases involving offenses against minors protected by the POCSO Act.

In conclusion, the High Court reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring a fair and timely legal process in sensitive cases involving child victims. The ruling highlighted judicial discretion in upholding the principles of justice and protecting the rights of minors under the POCSO Act. By dismissing the bail application while directing accelerated trial proceedings, the court demonstrated a vigilant approach in addressing crimes against children, prioritizing their welfare and the need for swift legal resolution.

This case underscores broader legal principles regarding bail, trial timelines, and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding vulnerable populations. It serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to balance procedural rights of the accused with the protection and justice owed to victims, particularly in cases as sensitive and serious as those involving sexual offenses against minors.

Case Title: Thosterning Lyngdoh Nonglait v. The State of Meghalaya and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2024:MLHC:533

Click here to read/Download the judgement