Himachal Pradesh High Court Emphasizes 'Breach of Trust' in Denying Bail to Senior Citizen in POCSO Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has firmly rejected a bail application filed by a 61-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a three-year-old child, delivering a significant ruling that underscores the gravity of crimes involving the violation of trust placed in caregivers. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the case, highlighted that the "heinous" nature of the offence and the profound "breach of trust" by the accused, to whom the survivor's parents had entrusted their child, rendered the petitioner ineligible for bail under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Court's Rationale: Age Disparity and Violated Trust Make Offence Heinous
In his detailed observation, Justice Kainthla pointed to two critical factors that influenced the decision:
- The substantial age difference between the petitioner, aged 61, and the young survivor, merely three years old.
- The fact that the child's parents had left her in the petitioner's house "in trust to take care of her," a trust that was egregiously breached.
The court stated, "The difference in the ages of the petitioner and the survivor and the fact that the informant had left the survivor in the house of the petitioner in trust to take care of her, which trust was breached, would make the offence heinous, disentitling the petitioner from the concession of bail." This emphasis on trust as a aggravating factor reinforces the judiciary's stance on protecting vulnerable children from predators within trusted circles.
Key Findings and Evidentiary Considerations
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the survivor's statement, recorded by the police, in which she specifically alleged that the petitioner had digitally penetrated her. The court noted that this statement, prima facie, indicates the petitioner's involvement in the crime.
The defence argued for bail based on alleged variations in the mother's statement and the absence of physical injuries in the medical examination. However, the court dismissed these points, reasoning that:
- The informant (the mother) was not an eye-witness and was recounting what the survivor told her, so minor variations do not undermine the core allegation.
- The survivor herself is considered the best witness in such cases, and her account holds significant weight.
- The lack of injuries does not necessarily falsify the prosecution's version, as medical evidence can vary in such sensitive assaults.
The state opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence and the survivor had specifically named him, which should be accepted as correct at this stage.
Legal Background and Charges
The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under:
- Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which prescribes rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years, potentially extending to life imprisonment or death, along with a fine.
- Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
According to the prosecution, the survivor's parents, who are neighbors of the accused, routinely left their child with him while they went to work. It was during these periods that the alleged assault occurred, with the child later revealing the incident to her parents.
This ruling sends a strong message about the judiciary's intolerance towards crimes that exploit trust, particularly in cases involving minors, and underscores the rigorous application of POCSO provisions to ensure justice for victims.
