Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 26: The Special Judge Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases), Jammu, Renu Dogra, has dismissed the bail application of accused Deepak Sharma in a child sexual assault case, observing that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous and cannot be viewed with leniency.
The bail plea was filed in case FIR No. 81/2025 registered at Police Station Nagrota for offences under Sections 74, 137(2), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) of BNS and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The accused had moved the application through his counsel Advocate Y.M. Khan, claiming that he had been falsely implicated and that the prosecution story suffered from serious contradictions.
The defence argued that the prosecutrix, her mother and aunt had already been examined and only a few witnesses remained. It was also submitted that the accused had been in custody for more than one year and that continued detention before conclusion of trial would amount to pre-trial punishment.
The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the allegations were serious and non-bailable in nature. The learned SPP submitted that the victim was only 12 years old and the accused was known to her, which could increase the risk of undue influence and mental trauma if he was released on bail. The prosecution further submitted that four witnesses, including the victim, had been examined, while six witnesses including the Investigating Officer were yet to be recorded.
As per the charge-sheet, the prosecution alleged that on April 27, 2025, when the minor victim visited the shop of the accused, he touched her on the lips and face. Later the same night, when she took her pet out for a walk, the accused allegedly came on a motorcycle, hit her with a helmet, took her behind a washroom, touched her inappropriately and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident.
After considering the bail application, objections, charge-sheet and statements recorded so far, the court observed that nothing had surfaced at this stage to support the plea of innocence raised by the accused. The court noted that the victim, in her statement recorded before the court, had fully supported the prosecution story and that medical evidence also supported the case.
The court held that while personal liberty is important, a balance has to be maintained between the liberty of the accused and the interest of justice and society. Referring to the seriousness of sexual offences, the court observed that such crimes strike at the dignity, honour, privacy and right to life of the victim and must be dealt with sternly and sensitively.
Holding that the gravity of allegations, statement of the victim and pendency of examination of material witnesses did not justify bail at this stage, the court rejected the application as devoid of merit. The court clarified that observations made in the order were limited to the disposal of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the main case.
(JNF) |
