Back
Adino Marboh Denied Bail By For Sexually Assaulting Minors At Children's Home
The on , refused to grant bail to Adino Marboh, a man accused of sexually assaulting minor girls at a children's home in East Khasi Hills. Justice W. Diengdoh, presiding over the single-judge bench, held that the accused had betrayed the profound trust reposed in him by the children, who affectionately called him "paieid" (grandfather). The court found that the material on record established that the petitioner had taken advantage of the children's vulnerability, making this an unfit case for bail.
The Case: A Grandfather Figure Accused of Molestation
The petitioner, Adino Marboh, was arrested on , in connection with Case No. 01(1) of 2026. The FIR, lodged on , at the direction of the , alleged that Marboh had sexually assaulted a minor girl. The investigation, which included the seizure of school certificates and recording of statements from multiple children, culminated in a chargesheet under read with .
The case was committed to the court of the learned
, where charges were framed and trial commenced. However, at the time of the bail hearing, no prosecution witnesses had yet been examined. The children's home where the incidents allegedly occurred, known as
"
"
, was run and managed by Marboh's daughter and her husband, making him a regular presence in the lives of the young residents.
Arguments: Liberty vs. Gravity of Allegations
Petitioner's Submissions:
, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced a two-fold argument. First, he contended that the arrest was vitiated because the were not intimated to the petitioner, violating his fundamental right under . Second, he argued that since the investigation was complete and the chargesheet already filed, continued detention served no purpose. Relying on the principle that
"
"
— as laid down in
and
— he prayed for the petitioner's release on bail.
State's Opposition:
, learned AAG, strongly opposed the prayer. He submitted that the case diary contained statements from several children residing at the home, detailing a pattern of contemptible behavior by the petitioner, including molestation and invasion of their privacy. These statements, recorded before the police and a magistrate, constituted glaring
evidence
. On the issue of arrest, the State produced documents showing that an
"
"
had been served on the petitioner in Khasi, a language he understands, on the day of his arrest. The State also pointed out that Marboh had filed four previous bail applications without raising this ground, relying on the Supreme Court's observation in
that the stage at which such a plea is raised matters.
Complainant's Stand: , Legal Aid Counsel for the survivor, highlighted the ongoing trauma of the child. She informed the court that the survivor, upon medical examination at the , was found to be non-responsive and required weekly therapy sessions—a direct consequence of the alleged assault.
Legal Analysis: Trust Betrayed, Bail Denied
Justice Diengdoh carefully weighed the competing submissions. While acknowledging that the petitioner was no longer required for , the court emphasized that each case must be examined on its own peculiar facts. The court found the State's explanation regarding the convincing, noting that the petitioner had not raised this plea in his earlier bail applications and that the record clearly showed service of the grounds in Khasi.
On the merits, the court turned to the case diary. The statements of the survivor and other children painted a damning picture. Marboh, a trusted figure in the children's home, had allegedly exploited his position to sexually assault the minors. The court observed that such conduct, if proven, represents a and cannot be condoned at the bail stage.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"What is evident on record is the fact that the petitioner/accused person is a person who has been held in high regard by the children of the said Children Home, being fondly referred to as 'paieid', which means grandfather. However, with such trust and faith reposed in him, from the statement of the concerned survivor as well as other children of the home, it is a betrayal of such trust that has resulted in the perpetrator taking advantage of the vulnerability of the child’s nature."
The court further noted that the statements on record
"clearly demonstrated the fact that there is
evidence
of the petitioner/accused person indulging in sexual assault and molestation."
In light of this, the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding non-, stating that the State's counter was
"convincing"
and that even on this ground alone, the petitioner could not persuade the court.
Decision: Bail Application Rejected
In a decisive , the rejected the bail application as devoid of merits. The court held that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for bail, given the evidence of sexual assault and molestation and the involved. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
The ruling reinforces the principle that while bail is generally the rule, the gravity of allegations and the nature of the offense—particularly when it involves the exploitation of vulnerable children by a trusted figure—can justify continued detention pending trial. The trial will now proceed, with the petitioner remaining in custody.
