##PAGE1##

Serial No. 02 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG BA No. 62 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.08.2026 Shri. Adino Marboh S/o. (L) D. Sylliang R/o. Puriang (Mawkajut) Village, P.S. Mawryngkneng, East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya.

…Petitioner -Versus-

1. The State of Meghalaya.

Represented by Public Prosecutor, Govt. of Meghalaya

2. Smti. XYZ (Complainant)

Through the Investigation Officer (ΙΟ), Mawryngkneng Police Station East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

…Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:

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

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv.

Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Adv.

Mr. L. Syiem, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. D. Chullai, AAG with Ms. R. Colney, Addl. PP (For R 1)

Ms. R. Dutta, Legal Aid Counsel (For R 2)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. This is an application for grant of bail made by the petitioner herein on his own behalf, the petitioner having been arrested on 18.01.2026 in connection with Mawryngkneng P.S. Case No. 01(1) of 2026 under Section 9(o)(p)/10 of the POCSO Act. The criminal case emanates from the lodgement of an FIR dated 17.01.2026 before the Officer In-Charge, Mawryngkneng Police Station, wherein the complainant has stated that on being directed by the Child Welfare Committee, East Khasi Hills District, they are required to file the FIR against the petitioner/accused person herein, on the ground that he has sexually assaulted a minor girl.

2. Accordingly, on investigation being carried out the Investigating Officer (IO) has recorded the statement of a number of witnesses and has also seized certain documents, including school certificates.

3. At the conclusion of investigation, the IO has come to a finding that a well-established case is made out against the accused petitioner herein, the offence involved being those under Section 9(j)(i)(k)(l)(o)(p)/10 POCSO Act read with Section 115 BNS and the petitioner/accused person is sent to the court to stand trial. The court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong has then taken up the matter for trial, the case being registered as Special POCSO Case No. 41 of 2026. In due course, charges have been framed against the petitioner/accused person and he is made to answer to the charges made out against him. The stage of the trial is for recording of prosecution witnesses, however, till date no witnesses have yet been examined.

4. Heard Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that primarily, the petitioner has a two fold submission to be made before this Court, the first being that the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated on the ground that there was no intimation of the grounds of arrest to the petitioner/accused person at the time of his arrest, as such, his fundamental rights have been violated, particularly, the provision of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India have not been made applicable to him. As such, on this ground alone he is entitled to be released on bail.

5. The second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel is that, firstly, the petitioner/accused person is not guilty of the offence charge and secondly, since the charge sheet has already been filed, which means that investigation has been completed therefore, in furtherance of his right to life and liberty as enshrine under Article 21 of the Constitution, keeping him in further judicial custody would serve no purpose. The golden principle of jail jurisprudence of “bail is rule, jail an exception”, has been laid stress upon by the learned counsel by referring to the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22, and also the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, para 21, wherein the Supreme Court has held that bail is a rule and jail an exception. It has also been held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused pe