The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor child, holding that courts must be especially mindful while dealing with bail applications in cases of sexual violence against children, given the lasting and irreversible impact of such offences.

Justice Sumeet Goel said,

"...while considering matters involving sexual offences, a Court has to be mindful that the incidents of sexual violence against the minor child in a society is not only grave but the future of the victim has been lowered and shattered into pieces. Once a victim being a minor child has been hurt physically, emotionally and mentally at a tender age, the same is bound to have adverse effects on the overall growth and development of the said human being. It is, thus in the interest of justice and of course the overall interest of the Society at large that proceedings are handled with due care and precaution, especially when the Court is dealing with an application for releasing the accused on bail."

The Court was hearing a petition, seeking regular bail in a case registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 127(2) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023.

As per the prosecution's case, the minor victim was allegedly enticed by the petitioner to accompany him to a secluded place on a false pretext, where the petitioner sexually assaulted him. The victim was thereafter allegedly threatened with dire consequences if he disclosed the incident, causing him to remain silent out of fear before eventually informing the complainant, leading to registration of the FIR.

During investigation, the victim was medically examined, his statement recorded before the competent authority, and other evidence collected, after which a challan was presented before the trial Court.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and had no connection with the allegations levelled against him. It was submitted that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case, as it did not reflect any penetrative assault, rendering the prosecution version doubtful, and that the entire story was concocted without any corroborative evidence connecting the petitioner to the offence.

The Court held that the plea regarding the absence of penetrative assault in the medical evidence could not, by itself, form the basis for bail at this stage. What weighed significantly with the Court was that the victim had already been examined before the trial Court and had supported the prosecution's case, specifically attributing the offence to the petitioner and remaining consistent about the manner of occurrence.

It said that such testimony constitutes substantive evidence carrying substantial evidentiary value at this stage, and that the effect of the medical evidence on the prosecution's case was a matter requiring detailed appreciation during trial, not at the bail stage.

Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the age of the victim, the specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the victim's testimony supporting the prosecution, the Court held that these factors prima facie indicated the petitioner's involvement in an offence that, if proved, carries severe punishment in law.

Mr. Inder Preet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Title: Diljit Singh @ Diljeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Click here to read order