Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court granted bail to a POCSO accused, stating, “‘It is the case of love between two young persons,’” noting the applicant was also below 18 at the time of the alleged incident.
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court granted bail to a POCSO accused who was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
In his ruling, Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh stated,
“From the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, it reveals that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was below 18 years of age. However, it is a matter of evidence. It is the case of love between two young persons.”
The court was considering the applicant’s plea filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail in relation to a case registered at Warangaon Police Station in Jalgaon district.
Also Read: “Law Should Build Bridges, Not Walls”: Justice Surya Kant
The charges involve offences punishable under Sections 64, 351, 351(1), 351(2), and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
As per the charge sheet, on September 3, 2024, the applicant allegedly summoned the 14-year-old girl to his residence in Ozarkheda and forcibly engaged in physical relations with her.
The prosecution asserts that the victim later informed her mother about the incident after her mother noticed physical changes indicating a possible pregnancy. A report was subsequently filed on September 27, 2024.
During the hearing, advocate Bhushan Mahajan, representing the applicant, noted that his client was born on June 1, 2006, and was therefore under 18 at the time of the alleged incident. He argued that the applicant has community ties, is unlikely to flee, and that the trial is expected to take time.
In opposition, APP P.P. Dawalkar for the State and advocate S.S. Gangakhedkar, representing the complainant, argued that the offence is serious and carries a potential life sentence. They contended that releasing the applicant could result in witness intimidation or evidence tampering.
The court highlighted the victim’s statement, noting,
“The statement of the victim child shows that the incident took place before six to seven months and it was revealed when she did not attain menstruation. Till then the fact of alleged incident was not known to anybody, except the applicant and the victim child. It shows that there is no force on the part of the applicant while commission of the said crime.”
In granting the bail application, Justice Deshmukh emphasized that the applicant has strong societal ties and is unlikely to evade the trial, reiterating that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
The court ordered the applicant’s release on bail upon providing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with a similar surety, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with prosecution evidence, influencing witnesses, and entering Bhusawal Taluka until the trial concludes, except for court appearances.
Case Title: Applicant vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.