The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to an accused in a case involving allegations of repeated sexual assault and gang rape of a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), holding that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim and the likelihood of witness intimidation.
Cancelling the bail order, the bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan has held that“grant of bail by the High Court is vitiated by material misdirection and nonconsideration of relevant factors rendering the same manifestly perverse.”
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the victim’s family alleging that the minor girl was subjected to repeated sexual assault by the accused, who, along with others, allegedly intimidated her using a country-made firearm, recorded videos of the assaults, and used the same to blackmail and threaten her. The FIR invoked provisions of the IPC as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
During the investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded, and a medical examination was conducted. Counselling reports placed on record indicated that the victim continued to suffer fear and psychological trauma. The accused and the victim were stated to be residents of the same locality. The Allahabad High Court had granted bail to the accused, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal filed by the victim’s family, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in granting bail by overlooking crucial material, including the victim’s statement, medical evidence, and the statutory rigour applicable to offences under the POCSO Act.
The Court noted that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, read with the medico-legal examination report, prima facie established the commission of the alleged offences. It observed that the allegations involved repeated penetrative sexual assault of a minor under armed intimidation, coupled with recording of the acts for the purpose of blackmail, and held that such conduct has a “devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society.”
The court rejected the respondent’s submissions suggesting a consensual relationship and held that such a submission is “untenable in law, particularly where the allegations extend beyond a single accused and involve coercion, intimidation and multiple perpetrators.”
The Bench further held that the High Court failed to adequately consider the seriousness of the allegations, the vulnerability of the victim, and the likelihood of witness intimidation, particularly in view of the proximity between the accused and the victim.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender before the jurisdictional court within 2 weeks, failing which coercive steps were directed to be taken. The trial court was also directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the mandate under the POCSO Act.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Md. Ali, AOR Ms. Shalu, Adv.
Respondents- Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Adv. Mr. Adesh Kr. Gill, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pal Singh Mina, Adv. Mr. Nagendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Akansha, AOR Mr. Naman Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Parth Singh, Adv.
