BAPPAN DAS Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the petitioner whose name figured in an FIR dtd. 11/7/2025 lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Laitumkhrah Police Station by one minor girl, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had molested her and has attempted to rape her. The said FIR was accordingly registered as Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 86 (07) 2025 under Sec. 9 (p)/10 of the POCSO Act, and investigation was launched.

(2.) The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner being apprehensive of imminent arrest in connection with the said Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 86 (07) 2025, has accordingly approached this Court with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. S. Laloo, learned GA has entered appearance on behalf of the State respondent. He submits that this Court vide order dtd. 3/4/2025 passed in BA. No. 14 of 2025 in the case of Shri. Balbinder Singh v. State of Meghalaya and Ors, has spelt out the procedure for issuance of notice upon a complainant/survivor/victim involved in a case under the POCSO Act, where it has been emphasized that confidentiality of the identity of the said complainant or survivor is to be maintained. However, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to cause notice to be issued upon such complainant/survivor, such notice to be routed through the Investigating Officer. As such, it is prayed that the petitioner may be directed to issue notice upon the complainant/survivor as far as this case is concerned.