HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Aibakor Kharbuli - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
B.A. No. 6 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021
BAIL - POCSO - Section 439 Cr.P.C. r/w section 31 of the POCSO Act - Sections 506 IPC, 7/8 POCSO Act, 9(i)/10 POCSO Act - The court discussed the principles of bail, liberty of a person, and the considerations for granting bail under the POCSO Act. It emphasized the need for a prima facie case, nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment, danger of the accused absconding, and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced. The court allowed the accused to go on bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail for the accused who was in judicial custody for allegedly molesting a minor working as a helper in his house. The charge sheet indicated a prima facie case under Section 9(i)/10 POCSO Act r/w Section 506 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the statement of the victim, and the principles of bail. It acknowledged the liberty of a person and the need for a prima facie case against the accused. Despite the strictness of the POCSO Act, the court allowed the accused to go on bail with specific conditions.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. r/w section 31 of the POCSO Act, rejection of bail citing Section 29 of the POCSO Act, and the seriousness of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case, nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of the punishment, danger of the accused absconding, and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced in considering bail under the POCSO Act.
Final Decision: The accused person was allowed to go on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. Matter taken up via video conferencing.
2. The applicant has approached this Court with an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. r/w section 31 of the POCSO Act with a prayer for grant of bail to the accused person Shri Milon Warjri.
3. Facts as stated in the application is that an FIR was lodged by one Shri Taining Donbor Nongrang to the effect that his sister aged about 16 years who was working as a helper in the house of the accused was molested by the accused since the year 2020.
4. The said FIR was registered at the Mawlai Police Station as Mawlai P.S. Case No. 32(6) 2021 under Section 506 IPC r/w Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, whereupon on coming to learn of the said FIR, the accused surrendered before the concerned police station on 28.06.2021 and on being sent for medical examination, he tested positive for COVID-19 and was quarantine at the Youth Hostel, Shillong. He was thereafter remanded to judicial custody and is still under custody till date.
5. It is also stated that the charge sheet has already been filed with the I/O indicating that a prima facie case under Section 9(i) /10 POCSO Act r/w Section 506 IPC is made out against the accused.
6. Heard Mr. K. Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant who has submitted that the accused had surrendered before the Court and was arrested and is now in judicial custody for more than two months. A bail application was moved before the Court below, but the same was rejected citing Section 29 of the POCSO Act and in the meantime, the charge sheet has been filed.
7. Mr. Gautam has further submitted that the only evidence against the accused is the statement of the victim whose statement is very sketchy, inasmuch as, she has stated that she has disclosed about the incident to the other household help who is working in the same house, but the said household help in her statement has denied any such disclosure.
8. Pressing for an order to release the accused on bail, Mr. Gautam has submitted that the rigors of POCSO are very strict and as such, if the accused is kept in custody and not allowed to go on bail to defend his case, he will suffer irreparable injury. However, if enlarged on bail, he is willing to abide with the strictest of conditions imposed by this Court and will provide sufficient surety in this regard.
9. To support his case, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments:
i) Dharmander Singh @ Sahep v. The State (Government of NCT, Delhi) Bail Appl. No. 1559/2020, paragraphs 64 to 69 and
ii) Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam: 2020 (5) GLR 153, paragraphs 48, 49, 50, 51, 54 and 62.
10. Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA appearing on behalf of the State respondent has strongly opposed this bail application submitting that the offence involved are very serious and more particularly since the matter has already been charge sheeted, the trial can be expedited. However, bail at this stage may not be granted.
11. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, before adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, vis-à-vis consideration of bail, it would not be out of place to cite excepts from the case of Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder & Anr wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2021 has inter alia discussed in substantial details the principles of bail by quoting relevant extracts from a number of decisions by the Apex Court itself.
12. Taking the liberty to quote the observations made in the said Harjit Singh case on liberty of a person, the Apex Court at paragraph 7.2 has referred to the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr: (2012) 9 SCC 446 at paragraph 17 which is reproduced as follows:
“17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sens
Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr: (2012) 9 SCC 446
Bhupen Kalita vs. State of Assam: 2020 (5) GauLR 153
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors: (2002) 3 SCC 598
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case, nature and gravity of the accusation, and considerations for granting bail under the POCSO Act.
The purpose of bail is to secure the accused's attendance at trial, and bail should not be withheld as a punishment.
The discretion to grant bail lies with the judge, considering the severity of the offence, the presumption of innocence, and the right to speedy trial. Humane treatment of prisoners with ailments is ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the importance of a speedy trial, and the humane treatment of the accused. The court emphasized the principles of bai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a speedy trial, the presumption of innocence, and the discretion of the court in considering bail applications.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in granting bail, considering the severity of the offence, medical grounds, and delay in trial, while emphasizing the p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the importance of a humane approach in bail applications, and the need for a speedy trial, as emphasized by the provi....
The statutory presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act can be rebutted during trial, and bail can be granted based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sexual intent for the offence of sexual harassment under the POCSO Act, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.