Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and the emotional impact on the victim can be a crucial factor in assessing the gravity of the offence.

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the father of the prosecutrix, who was minor under Section 439(2) of the CrPC for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent nos.2 & 3 namely Yash Sehgal and Saksham Bhasin by Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Katni vide order dated 09/03/2021 in Crime no.04/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Katni for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376 (D)(A) of the IPC and Sections 5g, 5l, 5n, 5m and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. As per prosecution case, prosecutrix, who was minor, lodged a written report on 21/02/2021 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Katni that during the period from 14/03/2013 to 21/02/2019 accused/applicants sexually exploited and committed rape with her. On that, police registered Crime no.04/2021 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Katni for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376DA of the IPC and Sections 5g, 5l, 5n, 5m and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the respondent nos.2 & 3 and arrested them on 22/02/2021. Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Katni vide order dated 09/03/2021 granted them bail. Being aggrieved from that order, the applicant filed this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent nos.2 & 3 sexually exploited the prosecutrix, who was a minor, from March 2013 to February 2019 continuously. Due to fear of respondent nos.2 & 3, she did not disclose their activities to anybody. She narrated the incident to her family members for the first time when her brother saw her trying to commit suicide.

Respondent nos.2 & 3 started exploiting her from March 2013 when the prosecutrix was nine years of age and continuously exploited her up to February 2019. The acts of the respondent nos.2 & 3 had a great impact on the emotional status of the prosecutrix. She is dealing with fear, low confidence and anxiety-related issues and she has to go to a psychologist from time to time for treatment and for counselling. During this period, she has undergone various counselling sessions and tests, the reports of which show that her mental condition and emotions have gone down to the average score. The incident has broken her badly both physically and mentally. Her childhood was destroyed due to the acts of the respondent nos.2 & 3. Her parents and family members are also suffering from big trauma. Learned Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Katni without appreciating all these facts, the gravity of the offence and the provision of Section 29 of the POCSO Act wrongly granted bail to the respondent nos.2 & 3, so the order passed by the Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Katni be cancelled.

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in State of Bihar vs. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav reported in (2017) 2 SCC 178, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny reported in (2017) 2 SCC 51, Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2012) 12 SCC 180.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted that it is alleged that the respondent nos.2 & 3 continuously exploited the prosecutix sexually and also threatened her from March 2013 to February 2019. But, the Prosecutrix lodged the report for the first time on 21/2/2021. There is no plausible explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. Had the respondent nos.2 & 3 been sexually exploiting the prosecutrix continuously for 6 years, this fact must have come to the knowledge of the mother of the prosecutrix. She further submitted that learned trial Court after appreciating all the facts and circumstances of the case granted bail to the respondent nos.2 & 3. The criteria/parameters for cancellation of bail are different from the one for grant of bail. Very cogent and overw