Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Gauhati High Court Cancels Bail of Accused in Horrific Child Sexual Assault Case, Orders Strict Witness Protection

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 21 July 2023, Gauhati High Court, acting on its own, has cancelled the bail granted to the accused Yumken Bagra in a heinous case of sexual assault on 21 innocent children. The accused, a Hostel Warden at a Government Residential School in Karo Village, Monigong, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh, is alleged to have committed the grave offences between 2019 to 2022, affecting 15 girls and 6 boys aged 6 to 12 years.

The court took cognizance of the matter after being “shocked” by news articles published in “Purvanchal Prahari” and “The Arunachal Times,” which reported on the granting of bail to the accused. The Court registered a suo moto cancellation of bail application, signaling its concern for the safety of the young victims.

A thorough examination of the case records revealed the gravity of the accusations. The children, who were under the age of 15 when the alleged acts occurred, were subjected to repeated sexual assaults by the accused, who was entrusted with their care as the Hostel Warden. The victims’ statements and medical reports corroborated the horrifying incidents.

The Court, in its judgment, expressed its dismay over the casual manner in which the Special Court granted bail to the accused, despite substantial objections raised by the Special Public Prosecutor. The prosecution had highlighted the risk of witness tampering and evidence tampering as valid reasons to deny bail. Nevertheless, the accused was released on bail, much to the Court’s concern.

“The conscience of the Court has been shaken by the way in which a case of such grave magnitude and sensitive nature has been dealt with in an absolutely cavalier fashion by granting bail to the main accused without assigning any plausible reasons,” the Chief Justice remarked in the judgment.

Recognizing the urgency of the matter, the Court ordered the issuance of notice of bail cancellation proceedings to the accused Yumken Bagra, son of Late Niyum Bagra, and directed the Advocate General of Arunachal Pradesh to ensure service upon the accused through the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station.

Additionally, the Court emphasized the need for strict implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, to safeguard the victims and their families from any potential harm. It directed the Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, to put in place full security measures for all the victims and their families. 

The Court also underscored the importance of sensitizing Special Judges handling cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). It mandated that the Judicial Academy, Assam, initiate immediate training and sensitization for all Judicial Officers dealing with POCSO Act cases in the States of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.

The case is now set to be listed for further hearing on 27th July 2023.                                                

D.D-21th July 2023.  

X X X      VERSUS   IN RE- STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Latest Legal News