The court emphasized the need to balance personal and societal interests, especially in cases involving serious offences and the reverse onus provision under Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act.

Headnote:
Bail - Offences under IPC and POCSO Act - Sec. 376, 506, 5, 6 - Sec. 437, 439 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, a school teacher, was charged with aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a minor girl. The accused claimed innocence and argued that he was falsely implicated. The court considered the victim's age, the accused's age, and the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was prima facie evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offences. It also considered the societal impact and the reverse onus provision under Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act, ultimately denying bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the accused's alleged involvement in the offences, the impact on society, and the application of the reverse onus provision under Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of the age difference between the victim and the accused, the exercise of discretion in granting bail for serious offences, and the need to balance personal and societal interests. It also highlighted the reverse onus provision under Sec. 29 of the POCSO Act.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed, and the accused was not entitled to bail at that stage.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition, under Ss. 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking regular bail, in Cr.No.124 of 2023 of Tanakal Police Station, Sri Satya Sai District.

2. A case has been registered against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sec. 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sec. 5 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act').

3. Case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that the Victim is a minor girl, aged about 16 years and while she was studying 10th Class in Government High School, Tanaka, Accused, who was her Telugu Teacher and on one day, when she went to staff room for drinking water, Accused, who was alone at that time, by threatening her and committed rape on her and intimidated her that he will kill her, if she reveals the matter to anybody and due to fear, she did not disclose the incident to anybody and since then, he has been threatening her and committed rape on her several times and as a result, the Victim conceived and gave birth to a male child. In this connection, on the report of the Victim's mother, a case in above crime was registered for the above offences.

4. The Petitioner contends that he was never involved in the alleged offence as falsely implicated him in this case; the Victim and her parents had knowledge about the Victim's pregnancy and they made several attempts to catch the real culprit abut they failed and they implicated the Petitioner's name as Accused in this case by making him as scape goat; 164 Cr.P.C statement of the Victim was already recorded and material witnesses are examined and DNA report is awaiting from the lab, but the same facts was not brought to the trial Court's notice and intentionally helping the real accused by implicating the Petitioner for political reasons; he was remanded to Judicial custody on 17/10/2023, since then, he was languishing in jail; he is a permanent resident of Tanakalu village and there is no question of absconding from the clutches of the Court.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the Petition as well as in the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the material witnesses are examined, and the release of Petitioner/Accused would not affect the Prosecution's case and the Petitioner never involved in the alleged offence and the Petitioner being a school teacher, he made a complaint to the School Head master as well as the parents of the victim, when he noticed the close association of the Defacto Complainant/Victim with her friend, who is an adult person and her relative and the Petitioner's name was roped into this by exempting the real culprit.

8. As seen from the record, the Defacto complainant/Victim is a minor girl of 16 years age. It is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sexual exploitation committed on victim girl, while she was studying 10th class in Government school by the Petitioner, who was Telugu teacher. The Petitioner is shown to be aged about 39 years.

9. In Dharmander Singh @ Saheb V. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi), 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1033 . the High Court of Delhi observed some parameters to deal with the bail applications pertaining to the POCSO offences. The court emphasized the significance of the age difference between the victim and the accused, noting that a greater age gap may indicate a higher degree of perversion in the alleged offence.

10. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases involving serious offences should be given. [See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan;(2004) 7 SCC 528. Dipak Shubhashch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document