Denial of bail based solely on the severity of charges against a minor is not justified when the accused has maintained prior bail conditions, and a prolonged trial warrants reconsideration.

JUDGEMENT

1. This Order shall dispose of the instant Bail Application moved for grant of bail by the Petitioner, who has been denied bail by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, vide his Order dated 17th of November, 2023 in a Bail Application No. 218/M titled 'Aqib Ahmad Baba v. UT of J&K'.

2. In the Application, it has been asserted that a case came to be registered vide FIR No. 175/2018 of Police Station, Chadoora, on 23rd of November, 2018, on a complaint of the father of a boy (name withheld), who was alleged to have been sexually harassed by the Petitioner, when he had visited the shop of the Petitioner. It is alleged that the aforesaid case had been registered against the Petitioner on account of some personal vengeance due to neighborhood fight; that the investigation into the FIR concluded into a charge sheet, which was laid before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chadoora and the Petitioner, as accused, was granted bail by the afore-stated Court vide Order dated 4th of December, 2018, after seeking Objections to the Bail Application and also in view of an Affidavit filed by the Complainant; that the Petitioner, as accused, had been facing trial for the last five years, however, the Prosecution failed to examine any witness in support of their case and then moved an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for alteration/ addition of charge and, despite the said Application having been opposed by the Petitioner, the same was allowed by the trial Court on 14th of June, 2023, whereafter, the Prosecution, again, moved an application to the trial Court with a plea of arresting the accused; that the Petitioner, who was on bail earlier, moved a subsequent Bail Application which was rejected by the Court below on 17th of November, 2023.

3. The Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid impugned Order passed by the Court below, inter alia, on the grounds that the Court has passed the impugned Order ignoring the fact that the Petitioner was facing trial for a long period of five years, having been bailed out without mentioning the satisfaction about the conduct of the Petitioner; that the Court below, while rejecting the Application, had mentioned that the statements of Doctor and Investigating Officer are to be recorded first, which is not the criteria for granting bail and, therefore, it shows that the learned Court below has not gone through the certificate of the Doctor, wherein it has been mentioned that no internal or external injuries were found on examination of the victim and that was the reason the Complainant had filed an Affidavit himself, asking for enlarging the accused on bail; that the personal liberty of the Petitioner cannot be curtailed on any frivolous ground which has been mentioned by the Court below, while rejecting the bail application. It has been finally prayed that the instant Application be accepted and the Petitioner be admitted to bail.

4. Pursuant to notice having been issued, the Respondents have filed Objections.

5. The Respondent No.1, in its Objections, has pleaded that initially a case had been registered against the Petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 77 and 511 of the erstwhile RANBIR PENAL CODE (RPC), whereafter, on an application moved by the Prosecution, the case was ordered to be further investigated and the concerned Police Station laid the charge sheet for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3 77 and 511 RPC as also 3/4 Jammu & Kashmir Protection of Children from Sexual Violence Act, 2018 (for short 'the POCSV Act') and the case was presented before the Sessions Court at Budgam on 21st of August, 2023, where the charge was framed against the Petitioner