Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Keisungpou T. Panmei - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Anr. - Respondents
Bail Appln. No. 5 of 2022
Decided On : 14-06-2022
POCSO - Bail Application - Section 4, 8, 29, 35 of POCSO Act - The court discussed the provisions of the POCSO Act, including the presumption of guilt under Section 29, the time frame for recording the child's evidence under Section 35, and the directive to complete the trial within a specific time frame. The court emphasized the importance of a humane approach in bail applications and highlighted the principles of bail as a rule and committal to jail as an exception.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C after being accused of sexually assaulting a minor victim. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner committed the crime, while the petitioner claimed innocence and sought bail due to prolonged custody without trial progress.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments of both parties and noted the completion of investigation and submission of the charge-sheet. It acknowledged the delay in the trial and the petitioner's prolonged custody. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the need for a humane approach, and the importance of speedy trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's innocence, the delay in trial, and the grounds for granting bail under the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the need for a humane approach in bail applications, and the importance of a speedy trial. It highlighted the provisions of the POCSO Act, including the time frame for recording the child's evidence and the directive to complete the trial within a specific time frame.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the prolonged custody, the presumption of innocence, and the undertaking given by the petitioner to not hamper or tamper with prosecution witnesses. The court imposed specific conditions for bail and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months.
Key Points: - The court emphasizes the presumption of innocence and a humane approach in bail applications under POCSO Act, with a focus on speedy trial (p_1, p_37, p_38, p_39). - The trial court is directed to complete the trial within six months and to proceed on a day-to-day basis; the petitioner must furnish a personal bond and comply with specific conditions to grant bail (p_50, p_42, p_43–p_49). - Bail is favored as a general rule, with imprisonment as an exception, and the petitioner’s prolonged custody without progress in trial is a factor considered in granting bail (p_29, p_30, p_41, p_25, p_41). - The case discusses POCSO provisions: Section 29 (presumption), Section 35 (timing for recording child’s evidence), and the need for a time-bound trial under the Act (p_1, p_23, p_39). - The court noted that the offence is serious but held that the merits of the case should not be examined at the bail stage; held that bail can be granted if conditions are met (p_39, p_18, p_41, p_42). - The final order granted bail with conditions including residency, reporting, no contact with witnesses, surrender of passport, and non-tampering with evidence, plus a six-month trial completion directive (p_42–p_49, p_50).
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C to enlarge him on bail by setting aside the order dated 17.2.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous (B) Case No.110 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.12.2018 at about 1.30 to 2.00 P.M., the petitioner sexually assaulted the minor victim by inserting his finger in her private part and had also licked the private part of the victim and had inserted his private part in the mouth of the victim, who is aged about 5 years. Based on the complaint lodged by the mother of the victim, a criminal case in FIR No.12(12)2018 under Section 4 and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 was registered against the petitioner by TML PS.
3. Mr. Julius Riamei, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. He would submit that the petitioner has been languishing in the judicial custody since his arrest on 6.12.2018. Since investigation has been completed, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required anymore. Further, the petitioner shall neither abscond nor hamper or tamper the evidence and prosecution witnesses.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that earlier the petitioner had approached the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West seeking bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous (B) Case No.110 of 2021 and by the order dated 17.2.2021, the learned Special Judge rejected the application on the ground that charge had been framed against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act and the statement of the victim is yet to be recorded and also there are chances of tampering of witnesses by the petitioner. According to learned counsel, such a finding arrived at by the learned Special Judge is erroneous and nothing has been proved that the petitioner has made an attempt to tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses.
5. The learned counsel next submitted that bail ought not to be denied to teach lesson to a person whose offence is yet to be proved and detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. In support, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 6.12.2018 and that there was no chance that the trial will be conducted in near future as earliest or in other words the trial will take long time.
7. The learned counsel urged that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Tamenglong District, Manipur and has absolutely no chance of absconding and that he has good antecedents and has not involved in any crimes or unlawful activities.
8. The learned counsel submitted that the general policy of law is to allow bail rather than refuse it and bail should not be withheld as a measure of punishment or for the purpose of putting obstacles in the way of defence. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
9. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the complainant and the victim and recorded their statements. Good number of witnesses were also examined and their statements were also recorded. He would submit that the petitioner was arrested and on interrogation, the petitioner admitted to have committed the crime levelled against him. The petitioner was also subjected to medical examination and there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that since the petitioner is familiar with the family of the victim, he is likely to tamper with the witnesses and if he released on bail, he is likely to tamper with evidence and hamper the trial. Thus, a pray
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 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 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 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 requirement of sexual intent for the offence of sexual harassment under the POCSO Act, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the importance of considering delay in trial when granting bail, and the need for a humane attitude in dealing with b....
Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the ....
The presumption of innocence, the discretion of granting bail, and the need for a humane approach in bail decisions were central legal principles established in the judgment.
The court established that the denial of bail should not serve as a pre-trial punishment and emphasized the importance of the accused's right to liberty and a speedy trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
