Bombay HC cites chilling CCTV evidence, risk of witness tampering in refusing bail to priest accused of abusing minor inside temple.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In the recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Mahendra Prasad Parasanath Pandey v. State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No. 4499 of 2024) highlights on the judiciary’s delicate balancing act between upholding the fundamental right to liberty and ensuring justice for vulnerable victims of sexual crimes.
This case revolves around a bail plea filed by Mahendra Pandey, a temple priest accused of committing grave sexual offences against a minor boy inside the premises of a religious place. The seriousness of the allegations, including oral sex and indecent exposure, all allegedly committed in exchange for a little amount of Rs. 40, makes this case both disturbing and legally complex.
Background of the Case
The applicant has filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in connection with Crime Register No. 352 of 2020 registered at Bhivandi City Police Station. The case involves charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
As per the FIR, the accused allegedly took advantage of the minor child at the Shakradevi Temple by offering him Rs. 40 and thereafter committed a sexual offence.
The accused opened the zip of the minor victim and make him perform oral sex and also committed the act of masturbation in in the presence of the minor child and and thereby discharging the seminal fluid on the floor of the temple premises.
The prosecution also claims that the accused spat on the temple floor during the alleged incident. If proven, these actions would amount to serious offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, both of which aim to safeguard children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
The applicant was arrested by Bhivandi City Police on 27 October 2020, immediately following the registration of the FIR. He was initially placed in police custody for investigation and later remanded to judicial custody. Since then, he has remained in custody.
The investigation concluded within the prescribed statutory period, and a charge sheet was filed before the competent court on 6 December 2020. The charge sheet includes witness statements, medical reports, and CCTV footage as part of the evidence collected.
Arguments by the Parties
Applicant’s Counsel:
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused has been in custody since 27 October 2020, amounting to over four years of incarceration without trial conclusion.
He noted that although a previous bail application was rejected on 4 November 2023, the Court had granted liberty to reapply after the child witness’s evidence was recorded.
However, the child witness was not examined for six months thereafter, reflecting a delay in trial. Even though the child has now been examined, the counsel contended that the trial is progressing slowly and is unlikely to conclude soon, thus violating the applicant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. On this ground, he sought the applicant’s release on bail.
Additional Public Prosecutor and the victim’s counsel:
In contrast, the Additional Public Prosecutor and the victim’s counsel opposed the bail plea. While acknowledging that prolonged incarceration may justify bail in serious offences, they highlighted the presence of crucial CCTV footage, supported by a Section 65-B certificate, that captures the alleged incident consistent with the victim’s statement.
They argued that releasing the accused at this stage could hamper the trial, potentially lead to witness tampering, and allow the applicant, a temple priest, to influence the victim and their family.
To balance the accused’s liberty with the need for a fair trial, they suggested directing the trial court to complete the proceedings within one year, and urged the Court to reject the bail application.
Observation of the Court
The Court has carefully examined, the arguments from both sides and reviewed the case materials. It emphasized that,
“Granting bail is a discretionary power that must consider factors such as the seriousness of the offence, available evidence, risk of flight, potential for tampering with evidence, and the duration of custody. In POCSO cases, special caution is warranted due to the vulnerability of child victims. While Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty, this must be balanced with society’s interest in ensuring a fair trial.”
Upon reviewing the record, the Court noted that the prosecution has presented substantial evidence, including CCTV footage backed by a valid Section 65-B certificate, which appears to support the victim child’s account.
The offences under Section 377 IPC and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the POCSO Act are grave and involve sexual abuse of a minor, allegedly committed through monetary inducement. Such acts, if proven, would constitute a severe breach of the child’s dignity and bodily integrity.
ALSO READ: Bombay HC Denies Bail to KEM Doctor in Molestation Case, Cites Victims’ Trauma
The Court also took seriously the prosecution’s concern that the accused, being a priest at the temple where the incident occurred, holds influence that could be used to pressure the child victim or other witnesses. Given the risk of witness tampering and the sensitive nature of the case, releasing the accused at this stage could compromise the fairness of the trial.
“The interests of justice would not be served by releasing the applicant on bail at this stage. The strong evidence in the form of CCTV footage, the serious nature of the offences involving sexual abuse of a minor child, the significant risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses due to the accused’s position as temple priest, and the need to ensure protection of the victim child, all militate against the grant of bail. The fundamental principle that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done requires that the trial should proceed in an atmosphere free from any pressure or influence on the witnesses, particularly the child victim.”
Therefore, the Court held that granting bail would not serve the interests of justice. However, recognizing the prolonged detention of the accused, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and examine all key witnesses within six months. The prosecution must also ensure witness availability to prevent delays.
The bail application was rejected. However, the applicant is permitted to file a fresh bail plea after six months if the trial remains incomplete by then.
Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Parasanath Pandey v State of Maharashtra and anr.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4499 OF 2024
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Molestation
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
