Serial No. 10 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG BA. No. 51 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 Shri David Das S/o Promod Das R/O- Nongmensong, Langkyrding, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya …..Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Meghalaya Represented by its Secretary Home(Police) Department Government of Meghalaya.

Shri XXX (Complainant)

Father of Miss XXXX R/o XXX …..Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. S. Nongsiej, Adv For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP Mr. A.M. Pala, GA Ms. Kathie M. Decruse, LAC i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent and Ms. Kathie M. Decruse, LAC for the respondent No. 2 complainant.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been implicated in a case in connection with Rynjah Police Case No. 302 (10) of 2025 U/S 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act for which he was accordingly arrested on 10^th October, 2025 and is still in custody till date. The learned counsel has also led this Court to the FIR annexed as Annexure A in this application wherein is found the complaint made by the respondent No. 2 to the Officer Incharge, Jhalupara Beat House stating that the applicant was having a sexual relationship with his minor daughter aged about 17 years and therefore on the FIR being registered the offence under the POCSO Act was set out against the applicant.

3. The learned counsel has further submitted that admittedly the applicant and the minor daughter of the respondent complainant are in a romantic relationship out of which they had involved themselves in a sexual relationship, this being the case, there is no question of actual sexual assault committed against the minor daughter of the appellant, the same being consensual in nature.

4. However, the learned counsel submits at this point of time, considering the fact that the applicant is a young man of about 24 years old and is a student pursuing his studies, as such he may be allowed to be enlarged on bail with any conditions that this Court deemed fit to impose. 5. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP has submitted that the Case Diary as called for and has been produced before this Court today and as pointed out that in the Case Diary, there is found an undertaking given by the applicant wherein he has admitted to having a physical relationship with the minor daughter of the complainant but however has also, apart from owning responsibility for his action, committed himself to marry his girlfriend when she comes of age.

6. Ms. K.M. Decruse, LAC, in her submission has only pointed out that as far as the issue of default bail is concerned. In this instant case, there is no question for default bail in spite of the charge sheet not having been filed till date since the offence involved punishment of 7 years or more which would indicate that the period of investigation in such cases would be stretched to 90 days, the said period not having been completed in this instant case. The case of Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67 para 71has been cited in this regard.

7. This Court has considered the submission made by the parties and on the basis of the submission made as well as on perusal of the application and the relevant contents of the Case Diary, would come to the finding that the case of the applicant as far as his relationship with the minor daughter of the complainant is concerned is one of a romantic relationship when, the said minor girl has admitted in her statement before the Magistrate, that the applicant is her boyfriend, the fact that the act of sexual inter course was also carried out by the couple is also an admitted fact.

8. However, it will be a matter of evid