Bombay High Court Denies Bail To POCSO Accused; Rejects His Argument Of Impossibility Of Overpowering 17-Year-Old Boy
Whereas rejecting the argument that it might have been not possible for the accused to overpower the 17-year-old boy with out indicators of resistance, the Bombay Excessive Courtroom has refused to grant bail to a person booked in a POCSO case..
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom was contemplating a bail utility filed below Part 439 of the Prison Process Code, 1973 by the applicant looking for common bail in reference to a case registered below Sections 137(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in addition to below Sections 4, 6, 8, and 12 of the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar noticed, “The Applicant counsel’s argument that it was not possible for the applicant to overpower the 17-year-old sufferer with out indicators of resistance lacks benefit. Sexual offences typically contain psychological coercion, worry, and shock, which might stop the sufferer from providing efficient bodily resistance. The location of the incident (remoted bushes close to a seashore) and the ingredient of shock might have facilitated the fee of the offence with out essentially leaving intensive bodily marks of battle. Furthermore, the age distinction and bodily power comparability can’t be decided solely on the foundation of chronological age. The Courtroom can not speculate on the relative bodily capabilities of the events with out concrete proof.”
“The character of the alleged offence is such that it not solely causes bodily hurt to the sufferer but in addition inflicts extreme psychological trauma that will have long-lasting results on the minor sufferer. Courts have persistently held that whereas contemplating bail in circumstances involving sexual offences towards minors, the traumatic impact on the sufferer”, it added.
Advocate Aniket U. Nikam represented the Applicant, whereas APP Megha S. Bajoria represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A 17-year-old sufferer boy approached the police station on July 31, 2024, and lodged a grievance stating that in the future, when he had gone fishing together with his good friend, a person approached them and succeeded in taking the informant to the bushes located close to Aksa Seaside. Upon reaching the bushes, the informant couldn’t observe something uncommon, following which he tried to depart the spot. Nonetheless, the unknown particular person prevented him from departing forcibly eliminated the informant’s clothes and dedicated unnatural carnal intercourse with him towards his will and consent.
Regardless of the sufferer’s makes an attempt to withstand and oppose the stated act, he was unable to take action successfully because the accused particular person possessed higher bodily power than him. The sufferer was overpowered and subjected to the alleged sexual assault towards his will. The accused particular person revealed his identification and callously informed the sufferer that he was free to tell anybody about what had transpired. An FIR was registered and the accused was arrested.
Reasoning
Referring to the provisions of the POCSO Act, the Bench stated, “Whereas contemplating bail functions in circumstances involving POCSO Act, this Courtroom is guided by the ideas laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtroom in varied judgments, together with the landmark determination in Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, whereby it has been held that whereas bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particular consideration should be given to the character of the offence, the age of the sufferer, and the potential affect on the sufferer and society at massive. Part 12 of the POCSO Act, below which the applicant has been charged, offers with sexual harassment of a kid, whereas Sections 4, 6, and 8 pertain to penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. These are severe offences that carry stringent punishment and require cautious judicial scrutiny whereas contemplating bail functions.”
Coming to the information of the case, the Bench famous that the medical report indicated indicators of current forceful penetration and acknowledged that sexual violence couldn’t be dominated out. The medical examination was performed on the day instantly following the alleged incident and the temporal proximity between the incident and medical examination lent credibility to the medical findings and negated the potential of the accidents being induced at every other time or by every other means. “…this Courtroom finds that there exists adequate prima facie proof to recommend the involvement of the applicant within the alleged offence”, it stated.
As per the Bench, the truth that the accused allegedly disclosed his title to the sufferer, as talked about within the FIR, offered a affordable rationalization for a way the sufferer got here to know the accused’s identification. “The absence of a Check Identification Parade, whereas being a procedural lapse, does not routinely vitiate the prosecution case, significantly when the accused’s identification was allegedly disclosed by himself to the sufferer”, it acknowledged whereas additionally including, “The consistency between the FIR and the Part 164 assertion strengthens the prosecution case and demonstrates that the sufferer has maintained his model persistently.”
Noticing that the allegations towards the applicant concerned severe sexual offences towards a minor and fees below Sections 4, 6, 8, and eight 12 of the POCSO Act are grave in nature and carry extreme punishment, the Bench noticed that Part 4 of the POCSO Act prescribes punishment for penetrative sexual assault with imprisonment of not lower than seven years, which can prolong to life imprisonment. The Bench held that the prosecution had efficiently established a prima facie case towards the applicant. The medical proof corroborated the sufferer’s assertion, and the immediate reporting of the incident added credibility to the prosecution’s case.
“The POCSO Act represents the legislative intent to present stringent safety to youngsters from sexual offences. Courts, as guardians of justice, have a solemn responsibility to make sure that this legislative goal isn’t defeated by a liberal strategy to bail in such severe circumstances. The Courtroom additional observes that the trauma suffered by baby victims in sexual assault circumstances 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 victimization via intimidation or affect by the accused individuals”, the Courtroom stated.
Highlighting the truth that the victims shouldn’t be subjected to additional victimization via intimidation or affect by the accused individuals, the Bench rejected the bail utility.
Trigger Title: Mayur Raju Wankhede v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-AS:26341)
Look
Applicant: Advocates Aniket U. Nikam, Sumit Patil
Respondent: APP Megha S. Bajoria, Advocate Viral Mukte
