Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 244 (MEG)

Jalsrang S. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2022-09-08

W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner apprehending arrest has approached this Court with this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of pre-arrest bail. 2. Mr. Sangma has led this Court to Annexure-1 of this petition which is the FIR dated 19.05.2022 filed by one Smti. Pomaline G. Momin before the Officer-in-Charge, Shallang Police Station, West Khasi Hills, the contents of which speaks of an incident wherein the informant had accompanied her minor daughter aged about 13 years to the Shallang PHC for medical check-up upon which the medical officer has informed her that her daughter is pregnant. On inquiry, the said daughter revealed to the medical officer that she had a love affair with the petitioner herein and they have been sleeping together on several occasions. Hence the complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that on a case being registered as Shallang P.S. Case No. 17 (5) of 2022 under Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the petitioner apprehending imminent arrest had approached the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nongstoin with a bail application for grant of pre-arrest bail, which application was rejected vide order dated 26.05.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner has now approached this Court with this instant application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has not denied that he was having a love affair with the alleged victim girl, but he strongly denies any involvement as far as sexual relationship with the victim girl is concerned. 5. It is also submitted that the primary investigation is over as the statement of the victim as well as other witnesses have been recorded. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded since he had appeared before the Investigating Officer on the strength of the order dated 11.07.2022 wherein on being granted interim bail, the petitioner was directed to appear before the I/O. 6. The learned counsel has again submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he will comply with any conditions set forth by this Court. It is prayed that this petition be allowed and necessary orders be passed in this regard. 7. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. The learned counsel has again submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and if enlarged on pre-arrest bail, he will comply with any conditions set forth by this Court. It is prayed that this petition be allowed and necessary orders be passed in this regard. 7. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that this Court had directed that the case diary be produced and accordingly, the same is produced today. On perusal of the case diary, this Court may pass necessary orders as deemed fit and proper. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court has also gone through the case diary as produced and has noticed that the facts as stated have been accurately given. The statement of the alleged victim girl as well as the complainant who is her mother and also the doctor who has examined the minor victim girl. The statements are consistent, inasmuch as, it speaks of the relationship between the minor victim girl and the petitioner herein and as confirmed by the doctor, the fact that the minor victim girl was found to be pregnant on being medically examined is also on record. 9. From the statement of the minor victim girl and even that of the petitioner, prima facie, it can be said that the relationship between the two cannot be denied and that they have had sexually intercourse in course of their relationship can also be presumed, as stated above from the result of the medical examination of the minor victim girl which confirmed pregnancy in the positive. 10. Crime against women and children is on the rise and society as a whole would also not condone any kind of relationship, particularly sexual in nature between a male adult and a young girl as young as 13 years old. In course of trial, the onus would be on the accused to prove his innocence in view of the provision of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which speaks of presumption of guilt on the accused. 11. As regard consideration for grant of bail or pre-arrest bail, the offence being grievous in nature, this Court would be very hesitant to allow the prayer unless evidence would reveal a contrary situation favouring the accused. 12. 11. As regard consideration for grant of bail or pre-arrest bail, the offence being grievous in nature, this Court would be very hesitant to allow the prayer unless evidence would reveal a contrary situation favouring the accused. 12. In the case of Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.07.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2022 while deciding a case of cancellation of bail has observed that '.... statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence....' Being prima facie satisfied that an offence has been committed, this Court would not consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail at this juncture. 13. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. The interim bail is hereby vacated. 14. Petition disposed of. No costs. 15. Registry is directed to return the case diary.