Top
News Updates

Bombay HC Refuses Bail To 19-Yr-Old Youth Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Minor Boy [Read Order]

Nitish Kashyap
8 Sep 2017 12:28 PM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court recently rejected the bail application filed by a 19-year-old youth who was accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy at his residence.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere rejected the bail application considering the nature of the crime and also observed that since the victim boy was only 10 years old, trial must be expedited, preferably concluded within 12 months.

Case Background

In his statement, the victim said that the accused had called him to his residence on November 28, 2016. The accused asked the victim to play games on his mobile phone. Later, he took the victim boy to the kitchen and forcibly committed “unnatural sexual assault on him”.

The victim boy also said he started weeping and was unable to pass stools as he was bleeding in that area. Thereafter, the victim informed his mother and a criminal complaint was filed at Khadakpada Police Station, Thane.

The accused was charged under Section 377 and Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Submissions and Final Order

Senior counsel Rajiv Patil appeared for the accused in the case. He submitted that his client had been in jail since November 2016 and referring to his (victim’s) medical report, pointed out how the victim boy had not sustained any external injuries.

Additional public prosecutor RM Pethe opposed the bail application.

The court finally observed:“Prima facie, the statement of the victim boy and his mother, clearly shows the complicity of the applicant. There is nothing on record to show, that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The FIR was also lodged promptly. Considering the aforesaid, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.” Thus, the application was rejected.

Read the Order Here

Next Story