In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary's protective role towards minors, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused bail to an accused in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. The court, based in Chandigarh, observed that when a child's innocence is violated, the law must serve as an "unwavering shield," prioritizing the victim's safety over the accused's liberty at this stage.
Court's Stern Stance on Child Protection
Justice Neerja K Kalson, while dismissing the bail petition, highlighted the solemn duty of the judiciary to act as a guardian for those unable to protect themselves. The court remarked that a lenient approach in such matters is wholly unwarranted, citing the adage that a society's soul is judged by how it treats its children. This decision reinforces the legal framework's commitment to safeguarding minors from sexual exploitation.
Details of the Case and Allegations
The case stems from an FIR registered on December 17, 2024, under Section 6 of the Pocso Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The accused was arrested on December 25, 2024, after a 13-year-old girl, whom he allegedly abducted, was traced. According to the prosecution, the accused took the child to Delhi and various locations in Uttar Pradesh, where she was repeatedly subjected to sexual assault in rented accommodations.
During the trial, the victim, examined as the first prosecution witness, provided a consistent testimony, narrating the sequence of events and the alleged assaults. Her account was corroborated by her mother, adding credibility to the prosecution's case. The court noted that out of 23 prosecution witnesses, five have been examined so far, including the two most crucial ones—the victim and her mother.
Defence Arguments and Court's Rebuttal
The defence sought bail on several grounds, arguing that the accused has been in custody for over a year and that the trial is progressing slowly. They also relied on the victim's initial statement, claiming she left home voluntarily, and pointed to the absence of external injuries in the medical examination.
However, the court firmly rejected these arguments, reiterating that a child below 18 years is legally incapable of giving consent under the Pocso Act, making any notion of "willingness" irrelevant. The bench further observed that minor inconsistencies or the absence of injuries do not dilute a prima facie case when the victim's sworn testimony is clear and categorical. The gravity of the allegations, coupled with the victim's consistent account, outweighed the accused's claim to liberty at this juncture.
Directions for Expedited Trial
While denying bail, the High Court directed that the trial be concluded within six months, emphasizing the need for timely justice in such sensitive cases. This move aims to balance the accused's right to a speedy trial with the imperative of protecting the victim's interests and ensuring accountability.
The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the legal system's unwavering commitment to child protection, setting a precedent for similar cases in the region. It underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the principles of justice and safety for the most vulnerable members of society.
