Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused charged with repeatedly sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, holding that timelines prescribed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are intended to safeguard child victims and cannot be invoked by accused persons to seek bail on the ground of delay.
Justice Neerja K. Kalson made the observation while dismissing a bail plea filed by an accused who had been in custody for over a year. The defence had argued that the trial was progressing slowly, with only five of the 23 listed prosecution witnesses examined so far, and contended that prolonged incarceration violated the petitioner’s right to liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Rejecting the plea, Justice Kalson clarified that the statutory mandate for expeditious trial under the POCSO Act exists for the benefit of victims and not for accused persons. Accepting delay as a ground for bail, the court observed, would encourage attempts to stall proceedings and defeat the very object of the legislation.
The court stressed that adopting a lenient approach in such cases was wholly unjustified where the innocence of a child stood violated. Emphasising the judiciary’s role, Justice Kalson said courts must act as guardians for those unable to protect themselves and that the law must serve as an unwavering shield for children rather than merely a punitive mechanism.
The case arose from a complaint lodged on December 17, 2024, by the victim’s mother, who reported that her 13-year-old daughter had gone missing and suspected that the accused had enticed her away. An FIR was registered at a police station in Jhajjar, and the accused was arrested on December 25, 2024. He has remained in custody since then.
During the trial, the victim fully supported the prosecution case, stating on oath that the accused took her to Delhi and several locations in Uttar Pradesh, kept her in rented accommodations, and subjected her to repeated sexual assaults against her will. The court noted that both the victim and her mother had unequivocally corroborated the prosecution’s version.
The defence relied on the victim’s initial statement in which she claimed she had left home of her own accord and had not alleged use of force. The court rejected this argument, holding that consent is legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act. Justice Kalson ruled that the law presumes a child to be incapable of giving valid consent, rendering notions of willingness or voluntary departure legally meaningless.
The court further held that the absence of physical injuries did not negate sexual assault, particularly in cases involving repeated abuse over a period of time. It reiterated that substantive evidence is the testimony given on oath before the trial court, not preliminary statements.
Finding a strong prima facie case and noting the seriousness of the allegations, the High Court concluded that the gravity of the offence and the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act outweighed the accused’s plea for liberty. While dismissing the bail petition, the court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within six months, examining at least four prosecution witnesses on each effective hearing date.
