Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Meghalaya High Court denied bail to the accused persons. (AI-generated Image)The Meghalaya High Court recently denied bail to a dance teacher and a sports teacher as they were accused of allegedly sexually assaulting a 5-year-old male student who studied at the same school where they were employed.Justice W Diengdoh, while hearing the bail plea of the accused, was of the view that, “If proven to be true as far as this instant case is concerned, no leniency should be shown to the perpetrators.”“Taking into account the innocence of such children who are not capable of understanding what is happening to them and also the resultant effect of the trauma that follows such a vile act,” the July 30 order said.It came on record that an FIR was lodged on February 24, 2026, where a mother alleged that her 5-year-old son was sexually assaulted by two school teachers from his school in Shillong. It was claimed by the mother that when she noticed the “strange” behaviour of her son, the child told her what had happened to him at school, where two teachers (dance teacher and sports teacher) had committed the sexual assault with him, and the incident allegedly took place inside the school premises in the washroom. Justice W Diengdoh was of the view that if the incident was proved to be true then no leniency must be shown towards the accused persons.The police arrested the accused persons on February 2, 2026, and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed on April 24, 2026, for aggravated sexual assault (Section 9) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It has come on record that the trial was yet to commence against the accused persons, which meant that the evidence of the boy was yet to be recorded.The Meghalaya high court was of the view that on evaluation of the statement of the boy, a primary case of sexual assault which was committed by the accused was made out. According to the court, proving the case was a matter of evidence, but considering the “nature” and “gravity” of the offence alleged, the Meghalaya high court was not convinced to give bail to the accused persons.Advocate BS Goyal, appearing for the accused persons, argued that the allegations that the child was sexually assaulted in the washroom could not be true since any child who needed to use the washroom had to be accompanied by the lady caretaker and no teacher or staff were allowed to go with the child to the washroom area. The counsel further submitted that the dance teacher was busy with dance practice in the auditorium and could not have committed the offence.Story continues below this adAlso read | Fast-track courts not enough, warns former high court judge on child abuse casesThe counsel also contended that the sports teacher was on the sports ground and unless there was clear evidence it could not be said that he had committed the offence. Further, the counsel urged that the medical report showed that there was no sign of use of force and that the accused persons had been in jail for about 166 days and the trial was not proceeding speedily.Additional Advocate General ND Chullai and advocate ER Chyne appearing for the state submitted that the boy had clearly described how he was sexually assaulted and since primarily the accused seem guilty, it would be more sensible that the high court first allow the evidence of the boy to be recorded and then consider the issue of bail.Advocate P Chettri representing the boy’s mother argued that as a result of sexual assault, the boy was traumatized because of which even his studies got affected, and hence bail must not be given.