Meghalaya High Court Rejects Bail In POCSO Case Despite Trial Delay, Considering Seriousness Of Offence
The Meghalaya High Court has observed that even with a delay of one year in commencing trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), while deciding on bail, the gravity of the offence needs to be taken into considerationThe accused/petitioner was arrested in relation to a POCSO case and a chargesheet was filed against him in June 2023. The Trial before the...
The Meghalaya High Court has observed that even with a delay of one year in commencing trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), while deciding on bail, the gravity of the offence needs to be taken into consideration
The accused/petitioner was arrested in relation to a POCSO case and a chargesheet was filed against him in June 2023. The Trial before the Special Court is still pending.
The accused contended that as per Section 35 of POCSO Act, the trial should be completed in one year. As no charges have been framed or prosecution witness examined, there would be a prolongation of trial, violating his liberty to defend the case and his right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Further, that the delay in the trial would automatically be the ground for grant of bail.
Examining the provision of Section 35 of POCSO Act, Justice W. Diengdoh noted that Section 35(2) of the Act provides that “the Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.”
The High Court stated that the phrase ''as far as possible” needs to be taken into account in the present case. It remarked that “…though, this Court is not privy to the proceedings before the Trial Court…it can be presumed that the trial has not proceeded before the Trial Court for the reasons best known to the learned Special Judge, POCSO.”
The High Court stated that while deciding bail application, the Court needs to consider the seriousness and nature of the offence, especially in cases of sexual assault against minors. Noting that the victim in the present case was subjected to gang rape, the Court rejected the bail application of the accused owing to the seriousness of the offence concerned.
The High Court directed the Trial Court to frame charges and examine the victim within a period of three weeks.
Case title: Shri. Thosterning Lyngdoh Nonglait vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., BA. No. 7 of 2024