Offence Under POCSO Act Against Public Morality, Court's Duty To Acts As Child's Guardian: P&H High Court Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail

Reaffirming the seriousness and gravity of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that such crimes strike against public morality.

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail of a man, accused of committing rape on a minor, an offence under Sections 137 (kidnapping), 96 (procuration of child),  3(5) (common intention), 64(1) (rape) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said, “In matters of sexual assault of children, the duty of the Court is to act as a guardian of the child. In such cases, legislative objective of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012, and liberty of an individual have to be weighed and balanced as the impact of such offences on a child victim is grave, long lasting and results in severe psychological trauma.”

Considering facts of the case, the quantum of punishment conviction may entail, as also that the offence is against public morality, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, was brother-in-law of the main accused, i.e.  who had a love affair with the prosecutrix. Referring to the copy of Instagram chat placed on record, it was urged that there was nothing in the conversation between the prosecutrix and accused-petitioner to indicate petitioner's complicity.

Moreover, there was five days delay in lodging FIR. As per the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix, she was wearing a green salwar at the time of examination but the Police recovered blue salwar.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that in her statement recorded under Section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prosecutrix stated that on the day of incident, she and the petitioner, brother-in-law of her friend reached the village from Gujrat; that the petitioner forcibly dragged her towards eucalyptus trees near Ghaggar river and despite her resistance, committed wrongful act with her.

In the medico legal report  as well, the history given by the prosecutrix reveals that she reached the village with the petitioner on the alleged day, where he raped her by river side, the Court further noted.

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. S.K. Sirsa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ved Parkash, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX