The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected bail pleas of three juveniles accused in a sexual assault case involving a visually impaired minor girl. The Court noted that the victim identified the accused through their voices and observed that release would defeat justice.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected bail applications filed by three juveniles accused in a sexual assault case involving a visually impaired and specially abled minor girl. The Court noted that the victim was able to identify the accused through their voices.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal upheld the decisions of the Juvenile Justice Board in Karnal and the additional sessions judge of the fast-track court in Haryana’s Karnal, observing that releasing the juveniles would “certainly defeat the ends of justice”.
The matter came to the Court after a complaint was filed by the chairman of the Karnal Child Welfare Committee. The chairman alleged that while he was at Ansal Town for work, he saw a girl child eating soil and noticed that she appeared to be pregnant.
On making enquiries, the mother reportedly told him that the girl was blind and specially abled and alleged that the offence took place in a nearby park.
The mother also claimed that one of the accused lived in the area and that his mother had threatened her to prevent her from lodging a complaint.
The State supported the earlier orders. It argued that the victim was a minor, specially abled, and visually impaired, and that the repeated sexual assaults had resulted in her pregnancy. It was also submitted that although the victim could not name the accused, she identified them by voice.
The prosecution further informed the Court that only four of the total 19 witnesses had been examined. It argued that granting regular bail to the accused on allegations of such seriousness would defeat the ends of justice, and sought dismissal of the revision petitions.
In its May 29 order, the High Court referred to an order of the Supreme Court in a case from Rajasthan, highlighting that courts must be particularly sensitive when dealing with juveniles involved in grave offences such as sexual molestation, rape, gang rape, and murder. The Court noted that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is a beneficial piece of legislation aimed at the reformation of juveniles and children in conflict with law.
However, while dealing with bail for a juvenile, the Court held that the decision must account for the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and cannot be based solely on the beneficial nature of the statute.
The court said,
“The victim in the case is a mentally challenged, blind minor girl. The offence has been reported by the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, who found her pregnant, eating soil and declared her a child in need of care and protection. Upon medical examination, she was found pregnant,”
It said,
“Prosecutrix has since been examined and has supported the prosecution’s case, identifying the three CCLs by voice. The offence allegedly committed is grave and heinous and shakes the judicial conscience of the court,”
The Court further stated that while the seriousness of the offence by itself would not be enough to deny bail, the overall circumstances justified refusal of bail.
It recorded:
“Even though the gravity of the offence alone is not sufficient to decline bail, in the wake of all attendant facts and circumstances of the case, release of the revisionists on bail would certainly defeat the ends of justice,
The HC order says,
“Thus, the CCLs do not deserve the concession of bail, notwithstanding the period of incarceration in place of safety,”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE