HC declines bail in sexual assault on minor

Excelsior Correspondent

Srinagar, Feb 10: High Court has dismissed the bail application of accused in sexual assault on a teenage girl by observing that the court cannot lose sight of the fact that after dismissal of the earlier bail application by the trial court as charges are yet to be framed against the accused.
The accused has filed the instant application seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 100/2023 for offences under Sections 376  and Section 8 of POCSO Act. “An important aspect of the matter pertaining to the instant case, which is required to be taken note of is that the petitioner-accused is aged about 48 years, whereas the victim is aged only 10 years. Thus, it is not an ordinary offence where an accused has tried to molest a major woman or where a teen age boy has, out of passion, tried to establish sexual relations with a teenage girl”, Justice Sanjay Dhar said while declining to grant bail.
Court said the accused is a middle-aged man, has committed sexual assault upon a girl child, who is about 1/5th of his age. The gap in age of the petitioner and the victim makes his alleged act more heinous and it shows an element of perversion in the offence alleged. The position of the petitioner qua the victim makes the offence more heinous.
Court apart from these observations said the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court on 20.10.2023 and less than fifteen days thereafter, he has approached this Court by way of present application, without there being any change of circumstances.
Court viewed that if in these circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail at this stage, exertion of pressure upon the victim, who is of a tender age, by the petitioner so as to coerce her not to depose against him before the trial Court cannot be ruled out.
“Therefore, granting bail to the petitioner at this stage, at least till the statement of the victim is recorded before the trial Court, would thwart the course of justice. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner can be enlarged on bail at this stage”, reads the order.