IMPORTANT POINT
The seriousness of the alleged offence and the lack of fresh grounds for bail are crucial factors in bail decisions.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner was arrested on 21.09.2021 being named in the FIR dated 21.09.2021 filed by one Smti. Mareenda Kharkongor in which FIR an allegation was made that the accused had sexually harassed the minor son of the complainant. On being arrested, the petitioner was eventually forwarded to judicial custody and is still in custody till date.

2. On investigation launched and on completion of the same, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet No. 27 of 2021 on 20.11.2021. The opinion of the I/O upon consideration of the facts and circumstances including the statement of the complainant, the victim and other relevant witnesses is that a prima facie case for an offence under Section 5 (1)/ 6 POCSO Act read with Section 506 IPC has been made out against the petitioner herein, for which he is send up for standing trial before the competent court.

3. In such a situation, the petitioner has, at the first instance approached the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong seeking bail on the grounds stated therein, and which application was rejected vide order dated 01.11.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner has again moved two more bail applications, but they were also rejected vide order dated 07.02.2022 and 10.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong. Not exhausting his legal remedy, the petitioner has accordingly approached this Court with this instant application under Section 439 Cr.P.C with a prayer for grant of bail.

4. Mr. C.H. Mawlong, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and will prove his innocence in course of the trial.

5. It is also submitted that the FIR is factually defective as there was no specific date of incident cited, but according to the alleged victim, the incident had occurred in the month of January, 2021 and thereby, there was a delay of about 8(eight) months in filing the FIR without any explanation thereof.

6. Even the medical report based on the medical examination of the alleged victim and the petitioner would also show that there is nothing material to prove that the alleged offence of sexual assault was perpetrated upon the alleged victim. Therefore, no case can be made out under the POCSO Act, it is further submitted.

7. The fact that the charge sheet has been filed in this case, therefore, the investigation has been completed and the petitioner has been made to stand trial and as such, he may be allowed to defend his case on being enlarged on bail with any conditions that this court may imposed.

8. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since the charge sheet was already filed, there is no scope for the petitioner to influence the Investigating Agency or to interfere with the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and also the fact that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State, this Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to go on bail.

9. Per contra, Mr. R. Gurung, learned Addl. PP while opposing this application on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that the records, wherein the statement of the victim was recorded would clearly show that a strong prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner and the offence being very serious, this court on consideration of the relevant materials on record may not allow this petition.

10. This court has given due consideration to the submissions made and has also perused the petition as well as the relevant records of the case which was duly produced on being called for.

11. The fact that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest is borne out from records and also the fact that he has preferred as many as three previous bail applications which were all rejected is also a matter of record.

12. The previous orders wherein the bail application of the petitioner was rejected, though not necessarily required to be considered by this court, however would show that the learned Special Judge at the fir