Meghalaya HC Rejects Bail for Accused Who Sexually Assaulted Children at Home He Was Called ‘Grandfather’

The High Court of Meghalaya refused bail to a POCSO accused who allegedly molested multiple children at a children's home run by his daughter, finding prima facie evidence of betrayal of trust and rejecting a belated plea on non-intimation of grounds of arrest.

Justice W. Diengdoh, sitting singly at the High Court of Meghalaya, dismissed a bail application filed by Adino Marboh, who faces trial before the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong, in Special POCSO Case No. 41 of 2026. The charges arise from an FIR dated 17 January 2026 registered at Mawryngkneng Police Station, East Khasi Hills District, alleging that Marboh sexually assaulted a minor girl at a children's home managed by his daughter and son-in-law. The court found prima facie evidence of sexual assault and molestation across multiple children's statements, and declined to credit a last-minute constitutional argument about arrest procedure that had never been raised in any earlier bail application.

The Allegations and the Path to Trial

The complainant filed the FIR on 17 January 2026 before the Officer-in-Charge, Mawryngkneng Police Station, on the direction of the Child Welfare Committee, East Khasi Hills District. Marboh was arrested on 18 January 2026. The FIR alleged sexual assault on a minor girl.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements from a number of witnesses and seized documents including school certificates. After completing the inquiry, the IO concluded that a well-established case was made out under Section 9(j)(i)(k)(l)(o)(p)/10 of the POCSO Act read with Section 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The charge sheet was filed, and the matter was taken up as Special POCSO Case No. 41 of 2026. Charges were framed against Marboh and he was required to answer them. At the time of hearing this bail application, the trial had reached the stage of recording prosecution witnesses, but no witness had yet been examined.

This was not Marboh's first attempt at bail. He had already preferred four bail applications before the Trial Court and this Court. The present petition, BA No. 62 of 2026, was the latest of these.

Two Arguments Advanced for the Petitioner

Mr. P. Yobin, counsel for Marboh, advanced two distinct arguments. The first was constitutional: that the grounds of arrest were never communicated to Marboh at the time of his arrest on 18 January 2026, violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, and that this procedural failure alone entitled him to bail.

The second argument rested on personal liberty. Counsel submitted that Marboh was not guilty of the offences charged. Since the charge sheet had already been filed and investigation was complete, continuing his judicial custody served no purpose and infringed his right to life and liberty under Article 21. Counsel relied on Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22, and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, for the proposition that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that deprivation of liberty before conviction amounts to punishment of a person who is presumed innocent.

The State's Response and the Children's Home Evidence

Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing with Ms. R. Colney, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, strongly opposed the bail prayer. He drew the court's attention to the case diary, which contained statements from a number of children who were residents of the children's home called “Ki Mawlynnai ka Jingim (Children Home)”. That home was run and managed by Marboh's daughter and her husband.

According to the AAG, almost all the children who gave statements described Marboh's conduct toward them in terms the court characterised as contemptible — he had molested them by invading the privacy of their persons. These statements had been made both before the police and before a Magistrate. On this evidence, the AAG urged that the facts and circumstances did not entitle Marboh to bail at any stage.

On the Article 22 argument, the AAG pointed to a document captioned “Intimation of grounds of arrest” served on Marboh on 18 January 2026 at the Women Police Station, Shillong, in the presence of a reliable witness. The intimation was also communicated to him in the Khasi language, which Marboh understands. The AAG submitted this refuted any claim that grounds were withheld.

The AAG also relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 23 July 2026 in State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 11944 of 2026. At paragraphs 11 and 12 of that order, the Apex Court drew a distinction between non-service of grounds of arrest and inadequate reasons being furnished: the former may vitiate an arrest, but the latter requires an assessment of prejudice. The Supreme Court had also held that where an accused obtained findings on merits in earlier bail applications without raising the arrest-grounds plea, it is not open to that accused to raise it later.

The AAG argued that Marboh's situation was squarely in the second category: grounds had in fact been served, and in none of his four earlier bail applications had he raised any grievance about the arrest procedure.

The Survivor's Continuing Trauma

Ms. R. Dutta, Legal Aid Counsel for the complainant/respondent, informed the court that the survivor continues to suffer. When medically examined at Shillong Medical College — Meghalaya Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Science, the examining doctor noted that she does not respond when called, and she attends sessions every week. Counsel attributed this condition to the trauma caused by Marboh's conduct.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Diengdoh acknowledged the general principle that once a charge sheet is filed and custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, enlarging an accused on bail may ordinarily be considered. The court accepted that this principle carries weight.

However, the court held that every case must be examined through the lens of its particular facts and circumstances. What made this case exceptional, in the court's view, was the nature of Marboh's relationship with the children. He was held in high regard by the residents of the children's home and was fondly addressed as “paieid”, meaning grandfather. That trust and affection, the court found, was precisely what Marboh exploited. The statements of the survivor and the other children from the home demonstrated prima facie evidence of sexual assault and molestation.

The court noted that no person with a conscience could condone such conduct at this stage. This finding disposed of the merits of the bail prayer.

On the Article 22 argument, the court found the AAG's counter convincing. The intimation of grounds of arrest had been served on Marboh on 18 January 2026 at the Women Police Station, Shillong, in Khasi. The court also followed the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sonam Raghuvanshi: Marboh had not raised the arrest-grounds plea in any of his earlier applications, and had obtained findings on merits in those proceedings. It was not open to him to introduce this plea for the first time now. The court rejected the Article 22 argument on that basis as well.

Order

Justice W. Diengdoh rejected BA No. 62 of 2026 as devoid of merits. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. The order was pronounced on 14 August 2026.