In ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPL. No.3000 of 2022-BOM HC- Case of prosecution cannot be doubted just because there is delay of 2 days in lodging FIR, says Bombay HC while rejecting bail application of POCSO accused
Justice N.R. Borkar [14-12-2022]

feature-top

Read Order: Ramkrshna S. Kumbhar v. The State of Maharashtra & anr 

 

LE Correspondent

 

Mumbai, January 21, 2023: Noting that in cases of outraging the modesty of minor girl or sexual assault there is always reluctance to go to the Police Station and lodge the report, the Bombay High Court has denied the relief of anticipatory bail to a man booked under the POCSO Act.

 

The applicant had appeared before the Bench of Justice N.R. Borkar apprehending arrest in a Criminal Case registered under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7 and 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

 

The applicant, in this case, was working at the Vada Pav stall of the complainant. On the date of incident it was alleged by the prosecution that the complainant was in need of grocery and she was not able to go to the market as there were a lot of customers at her stall. The applicant-accused along with the victim went to the market to bring the required grocery.

 

It was alleged that when they came back, the victim was crying and she disclosed that the applicant sexually assaulted her by pressing her breast.

 

Though the applicant had raised the contention that there was a delay of two days in lodging the FIR, but the Bench held, “In a case like this, i.e., of outraging the modesty of minor girl or sexual assault there is always reluctance to go to the police station and to lodge the report. In my view, the case of the prosecution, therefore, cannot be doubted just because there is delay of two days in lodging the report.”

 

It was the High Court’s opinion that prima facie, the defense of the applicant that a false report came to be lodged against him did not appear to be probable. 

 

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances, the Bench was not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. 

 

Add a Comment