Gravity Of Allegations Alone Cannot Justify Pre-Trial Incarceration: J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Relatives Accused In POCSO Case

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified solely on the gravity of allegations, particularly where the accused are not alleged to have committed the principal offence and their role is confined to alleged abetment.Granting bail to two relatives of the main accused in a POCSO case, the Court held that limited involvement, absence of direct allegations of sexual assault, and advanced stage of trial were decisive factors warranting release.Justice M A Chowdhary, while allowing the bail application, underscored that bail jurisprudence mandates a balanced assessment of the nature of accusations, the specific role attributed to the accused, the severity of punishment, and the necessity of continued custody, and that detention pending trial must not assume a punitive character.Background:The case stemmed from an FIR registered after a complaint was lodged alleging that the complainant's minor granddaughter had gone missing and was taken away by the main accused. During investigation, the police traced the movement of the couple to different locations outside Jammu and Kashmir and alleged that the present applicants being close relatives of the main accused had provided shelter and assistance to them during the period of elopement.Upon completion of investigation, offences under Sections 363, 366, 120-B and 212 IPC were invoked along with Sections 3, 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act. While certain co-accused were granted bail by the trial court, the bail pleas of the present applicants were rejected, leading to the filing of the instant application before the High Court.Appearing for the applicants, counsel contended that the minor had eloped voluntarily due to a love relationship with the main accused, a circumstance which had initially surfaced during investigation. It was argued that the applicants were not directly involved in the alleged sexual offences, had not participated in the act of elopement, and were under the bona fide belief that the couple was of marriageable age, being unaware of the victim's minority.It was further submitted that the applicants had remained in custody since July 2024, the chargesheet had already been filed, and a substantial number of prosecution witnesses had been examined. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that the victim, during her deposition before the trial court, had not attributed any serious or direct allegations against the applicants.Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the offences alleged were heinous and non-bailable, attracting stringent punishment under the POCSO Act, and that the applicants' involvement as abettors disentitled them from the discretionary relief of bail.Court's Observations:The High Court, while examining the rival submissions, noted that the applicants were not charged for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, and that their alleged role was confined to abetment under Section 17. The Court clarified that the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act operates in respect of specific principal offences and cannot be mechanically extended to every accused alleged to have played an ancillary role.In one of its observation, the Court held, “…the element of love between the victim and the main accused, the factum of elopement, the applicants being relatives of the principal accused, their absence from the scene of the alleged sexual offence, and the allegation being limited to providing shelter, are relevant considerations while adjudicating a bail plea.”The Court further reiterated settled principles governing grant of bail, including the necessity to assess whether continued detention is essential for the purposes of investigation or trial, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the possibility of influencing witnesses none of which, the Court noted, were substantiated in the present case.Considering the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the applicants, their prolonged custody, and the progress of trial, the High Court exercised its discretion to grant bail. The applicants were directed to be released on bail subject to conditions. Case Title: Joginder Singh & Anr Vs UT of J&K & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 63Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Gravity Of Allegations Alone Cannot Justify Pre-Trial Incarceration: J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Relatives Accused In POCSO Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags