Srinagar, Sep 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that his close relationship with the minor victim could enable him to influence or pressure her during the trial.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary, hearing the matter at the Srinagar bench, allowed the Union Territory’s petition and set aside the July 11, 2025 order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, which had granted bail to the accused.
The court directed the accused, a resident of Rahmoo in Pulwama, to surrender before the Station House Officer of Police Station Rajpora if the investigation remains pending. It warned that failure to surrender could lead to coercive measures to secure his custody.
The case originated from a complaint filed at Police Station Rajpora on June 13, 2025, alleging sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl at the house of her maternal aunt in Rahmoo. According to the prosecution, the accused entered the room where the girl was sleeping and allegedly attempted to molest her, while also threatening her with serious consequences if she disclosed the incident.
The girl initially did not report the alleged incident. The prosecution said she later informed her brother, who approached the police.
Police registered an FIR under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, the victim was medically examined, her age was verified and her statement was recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The investigation subsequently established that the girl was about 14 years old at the time of the alleged incident. Section 9 of the POCSO Act was added, while the earlier Section 8 offence was dropped.
The Sessions Court had granted conditional bail to the accused during the investigation. The Union Territory challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that the material collected during the probe supported the allegations and that the lower court had failed to properly assess the circumstances of the case.
The defence opposed the cancellation, arguing that there was no allegation that the accused had violated his bail conditions, absconded, threatened witnesses, interfered with the investigation or tampered with evidence.
High Court's reasoning
The High Court examined the provisions of the POCSO Act, including Sections 29 and 30, which provide statutory presumptions in specified circumstances. The court clarified that these presumptions operate after an accused has been charge-sheeted and are not, by themselves, applicable while deciding bail before framing of charges.
However, Justice Chowdhary said the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence required greater consideration than merely the punishment prescribed under the law.
The court noted that the alleged incident took place inside the home of close relatives and that the accused was the husband of the victim’s maternal aunt. It also took note of the allegation that the child had been threatened and of her statement before the Magistrate.
The High Court held that these circumstances raised concerns about the possibility of the accused exerting pressure on the child or interfering with the prosecution case while the trial process was yet to advance.
The court observed that the Sessions Court should have considered whether granting bail at that stage would promote the interests of justice or potentially obstruct them.
It further noted that the bail had been granted while the investigation was still underway, creating a possibility of interference with the investigation or prosecution evidence.
While acknowledging that cancellation of bail requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances”, the High Court held that the circumstances of the present case warranted interference with the earlier order.
The court concluded that the Sessions Court’s decision to grant bail during the investigation was premature and suffered from perversity.
The High Court consequently allowed the Union Territory’s petition, cancelled the bail and set aside the July 11, 2025 order of the Pulwama Sessions Court. The connected bail application and criminal miscellaneous petition were also disposed of.
Srinagar, Sep 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that his close relationship with the minor victim could enable him to influence or pressure her during the trial.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary, hearing the matter at the Srinagar bench, allowed the Union Territory’s petition and set aside the July 11, 2025 order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, which had granted bail to the accused.
The court directed the accused, a resident of Rahmoo in Pulwama, to surrender before the Station House Officer of Police Station Rajpora if the investigation remains pending. It warned that failure to surrender could lead to coercive measures to secure his custody.
The case originated from a complaint filed at Police Station Rajpora on June 13, 2025, alleging sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl at the house of her maternal aunt in Rahmoo. According to the prosecution, the accused entered the room where the girl was sleeping and allegedly attempted to molest her, while also threatening her with serious consequences if she disclosed the incident.
The girl initially did not report the alleged incident. The prosecution said she later informed her brother, who approached the police.
Police registered an FIR under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, the victim was medically examined, her age was verified and her statement was recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The investigation subsequently established that the girl was about 14 years old at the time of the alleged incident. Section 9 of the POCSO Act was added, while the earlier Section 8 offence was dropped.
The Sessions Court had granted conditional bail to the accused during the investigation. The Union Territory challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that the material collected during the probe supported the allegations and that the lower court had failed to properly assess the circumstances of the case.
The defence opposed the cancellation, arguing that there was no allegation that the accused had violated his bail conditions, absconded, threatened witnesses, interfered with the investigation or tampered with evidence.
High Court's reasoning
The High Court examined the provisions of the POCSO Act, including Sections 29 and 30, which provide statutory presumptions in specified circumstances. The court clarified that these presumptions operate after an accused has been charge-sheeted and are not, by themselves, applicable while deciding bail before framing of charges.
However, Justice Chowdhary said the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence required greater consideration than merely the punishment prescribed under the law.
The court noted that the alleged incident took place inside the home of close relatives and that the accused was the husband of the victim’s maternal aunt. It also took note of the allegation that the child had been threatened and of her statement before the Magistrate.
The High Court held that these circumstances raised concerns about the possibility of the accused exerting pressure on the child or interfering with the prosecution case while the trial process was yet to advance.
The court observed that the Sessions Court should have considered whether granting bail at that stage would promote the interests of justice or potentially obstruct them.
It further noted that the bail had been granted while the investigation was still underway, creating a possibility of interference with the investigation or prosecution evidence.
While acknowledging that cancellation of bail requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances”, the High Court held that the circumstances of the present case warranted interference with the earlier order.
The court concluded that the Sessions Court’s decision to grant bail during the investigation was premature and suffered from perversity.
The High Court consequently allowed the Union Territory’s petition, cancelled the bail and set aside the July 11, 2025 order of the Pulwama Sessions Court. The connected bail application and criminal miscellaneous petition were also disposed of.
© Copyright 2023 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved. Quantum Technologies
