Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
W. DIENGDOH
Thosterning Lyngdoh Nonglait – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya Represented through Secretary and Commissioner – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, who has submitted that the petitioner/accused was arrested on 12.03.2023 on the strength of an FIR dated 12.03.2023 lodged by the respondent No. 3 on the allegation that her minor daughter was sexually assaulted by three persons, whereupon the police on receipt of such FIR had registered a case being Diengpasoh P.S. Case No. 01(03) 2023 under Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act.
2. The learned counsel has submitted that affidavit of service as regard the issuance of notice upon the respondent No. 3 has been filed to indicate that the notice has been affectively issued, however, the respondent No. 3 has failed to appear before this Court today. Accordingly, on prayer made, this matter shall proceed ex-parte against the respondent No. 3.
3. The Investigating Officer after investigation has been completed, has filed the charge sheet in June 2023 implicating the petitioner herein along with two other co-accused who are made to stand trial before the competent court of jurisdiction in Special (POCSO) Case No. 24
Bail – It is incumbent upon court to consider seriousness and nature of offence, more particularly, in cases of sexual assault against children or minors.
The court emphasized the importance of timely trials and the rights of the accused when no prosecution evidence is presented in a reasonable timeframe.
The court considered the statutory presumption of guilt operating against the accused in a case relating to an offence under the POCSO Act, the specific role of the accused in the alleged crime, and ....
The court established that consensual relationships among adolescents should be carefully evaluated under the POCSO Act to avoid unjust criminalization.
Bail rejected due to serious allegations, victim's pregnancy, and requirement for timely trial under POCSO Act.
The nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the conduct of the accused, and the need for thorough investigation are key considerations in the grant or refusal of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article