| Court rejects bail of 2 accused in minor marriage, POCSO case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 13: The Special Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases), Jammu, has rejected the bail applications of two accused, including the mother of an accused in an alleged child marriage and sexual assault case, observing that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and cannot be viewed with leniency.
Special Judge Renu Dogra Gupta rejected the bail applications of Santosh Kumari, wife of Tara Chand, resident of Ramnagar Konain, Udhampur, and Shamsher Lal, son of Dharam Chand, resident of Gadhi Purkhoo, Jammu, in connection with FIR No. 79/2026 registered at Police Station Gangyal under Sections 49, 137(2) and 64(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, Santosh Kumari, mother of accused Rajesh Kumar, allegedly accompanied her son in keeping a minor girl away from the lawful guardianship of her parents and made arrangements for her alleged marriage with Rajesh Kumar.
It was further alleged that co-accused Shamsher Lal received money from the accused for solemnising the marriage between the minor girl and Rajesh Kumar.
During arguments, Advocate Gagan Oswal and Associates, appearing for Santosh Kumari, and Advocate Shahrukh Rashid, representing Shamsher Lal, submitted that their clients had been falsely implicated and were innocent of the allegations.
The defence counsels further contended that continued detention of the accused would amount to pre-trial punishment and violate their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Gupta, appearing for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, strongly opposed both applications, submitting that the allegations involved serious, heinous and non-bailable offences carrying severe punishment.
The prosecution further submitted that the trial was yet to commence and that releasing the accused at this stage could create apprehensions of influencing prosecution witnesses, obstructing the judicial process or evading trial.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the charge-sheet and the statement of the minor victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the Court observed that the material available on record did not support the claim of innocence raised by the applicants at the bail stage.
The Court noted that the victim, in her statement recorded before the competent authority, had supported the prosecution version.
"Bail is a rule and jail is an exception," the Court observed, while emphasising that the principle cannot be interpreted exclusively in favour of an accused without considering the interests of victims and society.
The Court further observed that personal liberty is undoubtedly important, but a balance must be maintained between the individual liberty of an accused and the interests of justice and society.
It stressed that the nature and gravity of the allegations, the available evidence, the possibility of influencing witnesses and the broader public interest must be considered while deciding bail applications involving serious offences.
Referring to the principles governing judicial discretion, the Court observed that bail in non-bailable offences cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that such discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the overall circumstances.
The Court further emphasised that sexual offences against minors require utmost sensitivity and that the criminal justice system must protect the dignity and constitutional rights of victims.
Significantly, the Court noted that charges were yet to be framed in the case and that the matter was still at a preliminary stage.
Considering the gravity of the allegations, the statement of the victim and the circumstances of the case, the Court held that no grounds had been made out for granting bail to either applicant.
Accordingly, both bail applications were rejected as being devoid of merit.
The Court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to the disposal of the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the main criminal case. (JNF) |
|
