Meghalaya High Court
Shri Mrinal Jyoti Rabha vs State Of Meghalaya on 3 April, 2015
Author: Uma Nath Singh
Bench: Uma Nath Singh
AB No. 17 of 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
03.08.2015
Mr AS Siddiqui, learned counsel, appears for the petitioner.
Mr ND Chullai, learned senior GA, assisted by Mr S Sen
Gupta, learned GA, represents the State respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings as well as the FIR.
It appears from the FIR and also the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC which is available with the Government Advocate that informant's daughter aged about 14 years (student of Class IX of Manikganj Secondary School) was sexually assaulted by the accused chowkidar of the School, namely, Shri Bhupen Rabha, who is alleged to have come from behind and grabbed her apparently with an intention to rape. It also appears that the members of locality held a meeting wherein the accused admitted his guilt. The complainant father of the prosecutrix approached the Headmaster next day on 09.07.2015 who could not give a satisfactory explanation and also refused to take any action till the examination is over.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a paralysis patient and is undergoing treatment for the past two months. But the medical certificate annexed with the petition is dated 10.07.2015, which appears to have been issued after the date of offence. The petitioner also moved an application for anticipatory bail before Addl. District Magistrate, Resubelpara, North Garo Hills District, Meghalaya, which has been rejected.
Looking to the background of the accused, I do not find any merit, inter alia, for the reason that the petitioner, being a Chowkidar of the School, has committed serious breach of confidence of the prosecutrix/student by his indulgence in sexual assault despite being in the position of protector and guardian. That apart, the medical certificate submitted along with the petition also appears to be an after-thought and basically designed to screen the offender from the allegation of commission of offence.
Hence, this Application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
CHIEF JUSTICE dev