By Shazia Siddiqui

The Allahabad High Court recently deliberated on a bail application concerning a severe case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused, detained since 2022, faces charges under Sections 376AB and 506 of the IPC, as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which deal with aggravated penetrative sexual assault and its associated penalties.

The Lucknow Bench of the High Court reviewed the circumstances of the case, focusing on the stringent provisions of Section 29 of the POCSO Act. This section establishes a presumption of guilt for offenses under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 when the victim is a child below sixteen years of age. The Court clarified that under this legal framework, the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the presumption of guilt.

Presiding over the case, Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan meticulously examined the evidence, including the medical examination report and the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The victim, approximately twelve years old at the time of the incident, provided a detailed account of the sexual acts committed by the accused. Given the victim’s age and the gravity of the allegations, the Court approached the bail plea with heightened caution.

The High Court emphasized that prolonged detention in itself does not automatically justify granting bail. Justice Chauhan remarked that while extended incarceration could be a consideration in bail decisions, it is ultimately dependent on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In this instance, the severity of the charges and the compelling evidence weighed heavily against the bail application.

Further, the Court dismissed the possibility that the victim’s testimony was influenced by her parents, noting the explicit and detailed nature of her account. Justice Chauhan stressed that, at the bail stage, there was no basis to presume the victim’s testimony was coerced or fabricated.

The rationale for denying the bail application rested on the serious nature of the offenses and the legal presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act, which requires the accused to present compelling evidence to the contrary. The judge underscored the necessity for the trial to proceed without any prejudicial comments that could influence its outcome. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the strength of the evidence, the application for bail was denied.

In more detail, the Court considered the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The victim had categorically stated that the accused had engaged in oral sex with her. Given the victim’s young age of about twelve years at the time of the incident, the Bench observed that it was implausible to assume that the victim’s statement was given under parental influence at this preliminary stage. The detailed nature of her testimony added significant weight to the prosecution’s case.

Justice Chauhan highlighted that “mere long detention in jail does not entitle an accused to bail.” He elaborated that while the duration of incarceration could be considered a factor in bail decisions, it should not be seen as a definitive criterion. Each case must be assessed on its unique merits, and the nature of the crime, as well as the evidence available, are critical considerations.

The prosecution claimed that the accused had “penetrated the penis in her way of urine” during oral sex with a 12-year-old underage victim. In response, the court stated, “It is well established that complete penetration of the penis with semen emission and hymen rupture is not necessary to constitute an offence of rape.”

The Court concluded that the material available on record, including the medical examination report and the prosecutrix’s statement, did not support the arguments put forth by the counsel for the applicant. While acknowledging that a person’s guilt must ultimately be determined by the trial court, Justice Chauhan found no compelling reason to grant bail based on the evidence presented at this stage.

Therefore, the Allahabad High Court’s decision to refuse bail was grounded in the stringent legal standards set by the POCSO Act for offenses involving minors, the credible testimony of the victim, and the overarching need to maintain judicial integrity until the trial’s conclusion. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of children and upholding the legal presumption of guilt for serious offenses under the POCSO Act, ensuring that justice is served through a thorough and impartial trial process.

Case Title: Pradum Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:41454

Click here to read/Download the judgement