Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 12: A Special Court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of an accused in a case involving alleged kidnapping of a minor girl and conspiracy to facilitate sexual assault, observing that no case for grant of bail was made out at this stage, particularly when the victim is yet to be examined.
The order was passed by Special Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), Jammu, Amarjeet Singh Langeh, in a bail application filed by Saifullah Ansari in connection with FIR No. 106/2024 of Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu, registered under Sections 137(2), 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7, 8 and 18 of the POCSO Act.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant, father of the victim, approached the police after his daughter, a Class 11 student staying at a hostel in Jammu, went missing. During investigation, it surfaced that the main accused had allegedly developed a relationship with the victim after concealing his identity, later blackmailed her with objectionable photographs and videos, and pressured her to travel to Pune, where he allegedly attempted to sexually assault her. The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the main accused, remained in telephonic contact with the victim and later took her towards Agra on the pretext of bringing her back to Jammu, where both were eventually traced by Jammu Police.
The court noted that the petitioner had pleaded innocence and false implication, while the prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, contending that serious offences were involved and that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act operated against the accused at this stage.
After hearing Tarun Sharma, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner, while Sh. Riyaz Ahmed, In-charge Public Prosecutor, represented the respondent-State and perusing the record, the court observed that the prosecution material prima facie pointed to the petitioner's involvement in kidnapping and criminal conspiracy aimed at facilitating the commission of offences under the POCSO Act. The court also noted that two prosecution witnesses, including the victim's mother, have already been examined, while the victim herself is yet to depose.
Holding that nothing had been placed on record to rebut the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and that the victim's testimony still remains to be recorded, the court dismissed the bail application. It, however, clarified that the observations made in the order were only for the purpose of deciding the bail plea and would not influence the merits of the main trial.
(JNF) |
