Meghalaya HC Refuses Bail to Two Teachers Accused of Sexually Assaulting a Five-Year-Old at Shillong School

The High Court of Meghalaya dismissed bail applications by two teachers at BDW International School charged under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a five-year-old pupil on four occasions inside the school premises.

Justice W. Diengdoh, sitting singly at the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, on 30 July 2026 dismissed two bail applications filed by Aboni Basumatari, the Sports teacher, and Kamal Thapa, the Dance teacher, of BDW International School, Lankyrding, Shillong. Both men were arrested on 25 February 2026, a day after an FIR was lodged alleging that they had subjected a five-year-old boy to penetrative sexual acts and inappropriate touching of his private parts on four separate occasions inside the school washroom. A charge sheet filed on 24 April 2026 found a prima facie case under Section 9(f)(l)(m)/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act established against both accused, and both remained in custody, with the trial yet to commence by the date of hearing.

The Allegations and the FIR

The complainant, mother of the survivor, lodged the FIR on 24 February 2026 before the Officer-in-Charge, Nongmynsong Police Outpost, Shillong. The case was registered as Rynjah PS Case No. 47(2) 2026 under Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

According to the FIR, the mother first noticed unusual behaviour in her son on 18 February 2026, when he returned from school complaining of leg pain and appeared tired. It was only on 22 February 2026 that the child told her he had been sexually abused by his teachers inside the school toilet on four occasions. He described the perpetrators as “afternoon sir blue and black.” When shown photographs, the survivor identified both petitioners. The complainant's counsel before the High Court stated that as a result of the assaults, the child was traumatised and his studies had been affected.

The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet finding a prima facie case under Section 9(f)(l)(m)/10 of the POCSO Act against both accused. The survivor's statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and in it the child described what was done to him and referred to the teacher as the one who had touched him four times.

Arguments Advanced for Bail

Mrs. B.S. Goyal, counsel for both petitioners, raised several grounds. She pointed out that the school was equipped with approximately 250 CCTV cameras covering various areas including the auditorium, yet the Investigating Officer had not seized or disclosed any CCTV footage in the charge sheet. The absence of such seizure, she argued, meant there was no independent evidence of the commission of the offence, because had the act occurred, the footage would have revealed it.

On the specific allegation that the assault took place in the washroom, counsel submitted that school policy required any child needing to use the washroom to be mandatorily accompanied by a lady caretaker, and no teacher or staff member was permitted to accompany a child there.

As to Kamal Thapa (Petitioner No. 2), the Dance teacher, counsel submitted that he was engaged in dance practice in the auditorium from 9:00 am to 9:30 pm during the period 12 February 2026 to 19 February 2026, making the alleged commission of the offence impossible. As to Aboni Basumatari (Petitioner No. 1), the Sports teacher, counsel acknowledged that his duty on 13 February 2026 ran from 9:30 am to 10:10 am in the sports ground, and — in a candid concession — that within the 40-minute period he could have committed the offence, but argued that without CCTV confirmation no such conclusion could be drawn.

Counsel also relied on the medical report, which she said showed no sign of use of force and no sign of anal penetration, and on statements of some witnesses who had not noticed any strange behaviour in the survivor. She further submitted that Petitioner No. 2 had been granted interim bail by the Trial Court to attend his grandmother's funeral and had returned to custody well before the expiry of that period, demonstrating that he would not abscond or tamper with evidence if released.

On the period of custody, counsel argued that both petitioners had been in custody for approximately 166 days without the trial proceeding speedily, and that on that ground alone bail was warranted. She relied on Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22, for the proposition that grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception, and also on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh and Anr., 2026 SCC Online SC 40.

State and Complainant's Opposition

Mr. N.D. Chullai, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. E.R. Chyne, Government Advocate, opposed bail on behalf of State Respondents 1 and 2. The AAG submitted that the materials on record, including the FIR and the survivor's statement under Section 183 BNSS, clearly established a prima facie case. In that statement, the survivor had demonstrated how the sexual assault was committed and had referred to the petitioner as “afternoon sir, one wearing blue and black,” stating that the teacher had touched him four times.

The AAG further submitted that since the charge sheet had been filed and the matter was fixed for consideration of charges, it would be prudent for the Court to await the recording of the survivor's evidence before bail was considered. He cited the Meghalaya High Court's own earlier order in Shri Thosterning Lyngdoh Nonglait v. State of Meghalaya, BA No. 7 of 2024, where, while rejecting a bail application in a POCSO matter, the Court had directed the Trial Court to frame charges and examine the survivor within three weeks, leaving the accused at liberty to seek bail afresh after deposition.

The AAG also placed reliance on the Gujarat High Court's order in Nihar Ranjitbhai Barad v. State of Gujarat, R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 18985 of 2022 (order dated 30 November 2022), which observed that sexual assault on children must be viewed seriously and dealt with stringently, and that exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and society.

Ms. P. Chettri, Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No. 3 (the complainant/mother), reiterated the sequence of events and submitted that the survivor had been traumatised and his studies affected, and prayed that bail be refused.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Diengdoh, having heard all counsel, held that on an appreciation of the survivor's statement, a prima facie case of sexual assault by the accused petitioners had been made out. The Court considered the parameters for bail drawn from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, as quoted in the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Nihar Ranjitbhai Barad: whether there is reasonable ground to believe the accused committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment on conviction, the danger of absconding, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced, and the danger of justice being thwarted.

The Court agreed with the observation in Nihar Ranjitbhai Barad that any act of sexual assault on children must be viewed seriously, taking into account the innocence of children who are not capable of understanding what is happening to them, and the trauma that follows. While acknowledging that it would ultimately be a matter of evidence for the prosecution to prove its case, the Court stated plainly that considering the nature and gravity of the offence alleged, it was not inclined to allow the prayer at this stage.

The Court did not engage in a detailed rebuttal of the CCTV argument or the duty-time alibi on merits, consistent with the settled position that bail proceedings do not involve a full-scale evaluation of evidence. The medical report's findings and the custody period of approximately 166 days were considered but did not persuade the Court given the prima facie strength of the survivor's statement and the gravity of the charges.

Outcome

Justice W. Diengdoh dismissed both bail applications — BA No. 45 of 2026 and BA No. 46 of 2026 — as devoid of merits. No costs were awarded. Both petitioners, Aboni Basumatari and Kamal Thapa, are to remain in custody. The matter will proceed before the Trial Court for framing of charges and recording of the survivor's evidence.