Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked For Sodomising Minor Boy
The Bombay Excessive Court docket not too long ago held that in severe instances lined beneath particular statute just like the Safety Of Kids from Sexual Offences (POCSO), courts shouldn’t have a ‘liberal’ strategy and grant bail to an accused.
Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar noticed that although each accused has a elementary proper to liberty however the identical can’t be stated to be an ‘absolute proper.’
“This Court docket observes that whereas each accused individual has a elementary proper to liberty, this proper shouldn’t be absolute and should be balanced towards the bigger pursuits of justice, public order, and the safety of victims, notably when the victims are minors. The POCSO Act represents the legislative intent to supply stringent safety to youngsters from sexual offences. Courts, as guardians of justice, have a solemn obligation to make sure that this legislative goal shouldn’t be defeated by a liberal strategy to bail in such severe instances,” the decide stated within the order handed on July 2.
In his 12-page judgment, Justice Borkar noticed that the trauma suffered by little one victims in sexual assault instances is immense and long-lasting.
“The legal justice system should be delicate to their plight and be certain that they don’t seem to be subjected to additional victimisation via intimidation or affect by the accused individuals,” the decide underlined.
The bench made the observations whereas refusing bail to at least one Mayur Wankhede, accused of sodomising a 17-year-old boy in bushes close to the Juhu seaside in Mumbai.
The decide rejected the argument that it was unimaginable for the applicant to overpower the 17-year-old sufferer with out indicators of resistance.
“Sexual offences typically contain psychological coercion, worry, and shock, which can forestall the sufferer from providing efficient bodily resistance. The placement of the incident (remoted bushes close to a seaside) and the component of shock might have facilitated the fee of the offence with out essentially leaving in depth bodily marks of wrestle. Furthermore, the age distinction and bodily energy comparability can’t be decided solely on the idea of chronological age. The Court docket can’t speculate on the relative bodily capabilities of the events with out concrete proof,” Justice Borkar noticed.
The character of the alleged offence is such that it not solely causes bodily hurt to the sufferer but additionally inflicts extreme psychological trauma which will have long-lasting results on the minor sufferer, the courtroom held.
Additional, the decide identified that courts have constantly held that whereas contemplating bail in instances involving sexual offences towards minors, the traumatic impact on the sufferer and the potential for the accused influencing or intimidating the sufferer or witnesses should be given due consideration.
“Given the character of the allegations and the truth that the sufferer is a minor, there exists an inexpensive apprehension that if launched on bail, the applicant could try to affect the sufferer or different witnesses. The sufferer, being a minor, is especially weak to intimidation or stress, which might significantly compromise the honest trial of the case. The investigation has been accomplished and the charge-sheet has been filed, however the trial is but to begin. Throughout this significant interval, it’s important to make sure that the sufferer and witnesses are shielded from any potential affect or harassment by the accused,” the decide opined.
With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea filed by Wankhede, who sought bail.
Look:
Advocates Aniket Nikam and Sumit Patil appeared for the Applicant.
Further Public Prosecutor Megha Bajoria represented the State.
Advocate Viral Mukte was appointed to symbolize the Sufferer.
Case Title: Mayur Raju Waghmare vs State of Maharashtra (Bail Software 897 of 2025)
