By Shazia Siddiqui

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to a 20-year-old accused under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court emphasized that continued detention could expose the young man to hardened criminals, which would not be in his best interest. This case, involving charges under Section 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 66(c) and 66(E) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, saw the accused seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Presiding over the case, Justice M G Uma focused on the age of the accused, highlighting that, “the petitioner is hardly aged 20 years. If he is detained in custody, there is every possibility of he coming in contact with hardcore criminals, which is not in the best interest of the petitioner.” This statement reflects a judicial concern for the potential negative impact of prolonged detention on young offenders, specifically regarding their rehabilitation and future prospects.

The case presented by the prosecution included serious allegations against the petitioner. However, the Court noted inconsistencies in the evidence provided, particularly in the victim’s age. After taking her private images during their Instagram conversations, Nikil Sankla, the petitioner, sexually assaulted the 17-year-old and began blackmailing her family, the police arrested Sankla. The petitioner was accused of committing the offense with grave consequences.The school’s admission register indicated that the victim was born in 2003, while her birth certificate showed 2006 as her birth year. This discrepancy raised questions about the reliability of the documents and the timeline of events. Additionally, the Court observed a significant delay between the alleged offense, which occurred in December 2022, and the filing of the first information report (FIR) in 2024. Such delays often complicate the judicial process and can affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

Given these factors, the Court decided to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to specific conditions. These conditions are designed to mitigate any risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with or threatening the prosecution witnesses. By imposing such conditions, the Court aims to balance the rights of the accused with the need to ensure the integrity of the judicial process and the safety of the witnesses involved.

The decision to grant bail in this case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to a nuanced approach to justice, especially for young adults accused of serious offenses. While the charges against the petitioner are grave, the Court’s ruling reflects a broader understanding of the criminal justice system’s role in rehabilitating offenders, not just punishing them. It underscores the importance of considering the long-term impacts of incarceration on young individuals and the potential for their reintegration into society.

Moreover, the Court’s emphasis on the discrepancies in the victim’s age and the delayed filing of the FIR illustrates the judiciary’s vigilance in ensuring that all evidence is scrutinized thoroughly. This scrutiny is crucial in maintaining the fairness and integrity of the legal process, particularly in cases involving severe allegations under the POCSO Act and other serious offenses.

Ultimately, this case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance that courts must strike between upholding justice and supporting the rehabilitation of young offenders. The Karnataka High Court’s decision to grant bail, while imposing strict conditions, reflects a commitment to fair treatment and the careful consideration of each individual’s circumstances. It reaffirms the judiciary’s role in not only delivering justice but also fostering a rehabilitative approach to young adults facing criminal charges, ensuring their future is not irrevocably damaged by their current predicament.

Case Title: Nikil Sankla v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2024:KHC:18930

Click here to read/Download the judgement