Meghalaya High Court denies bail to teachers accused of sexually assaulting 5-year-old boy

Justice W Diengdoh stated that no leniency must be shown to the accused if the incident is proven to be true.

The police arrested the accused on February 25 and after an investigation, the chargesheet was filed on April 24 under Section 9 (aggravated sexual assault ) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The trial in the case is yet to begin, which means that the boy’s evidence is yet to be recorded.

‘Boy traumatised’

Advocate B S Goyal, appearing for the accused, argued that the allegations that the child was sexually assaulted in the toilet could not be true since any child who needed to use the washroom had to be accompanied by a woman caretaker and no teacher or staff members were allowed to go with the child to the toilet. It was submitted that the dance teacher was busy with dance practice in the auditorium and could not have committed the offence.

The counsel also argued that the sports teacher was on the sports ground and unless there was clear evidence, it could not be said that he had committed the offence. Besides, the boy’s medical examination report showed that there was no use of force, he pointed out, and stated that the accused had been in jail for about 166 days while the trial was not proceeding quickly.

Additional Advocate General N D Chullai and advocate E R Chyne, appearing for the state, submitted that the boy had clearly described how he was sexually assaulted and since the accused primarily appeared to be guilty, it would be more sensible that the high court first allowed the boy’s evidence to be recorded and then consider the issue of bail.

Advocate P Chettri, representing the boy’s mother, argued that as a result of the sexual assault, the boy was traumatised and his studies were also affected and, hence, bail must be denied.

Considering the arguments, the Meghalaya High Court said that a primary case of sexual assault was made out after evaluating the boy’s statement. “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,” the court said, denying bail to the accused.