Bombay High Court: In a peculiar case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”), where a man accused under Sections 11(i), (v), (vi) and 12, , was granted interim bail by the single-Judge Bench of Manish Pitale J.*, who considered his previous bail for offences charged against him by the instant co-accused mother (“co-accused”) under Sections 376(2)(n), 307, 509, 323 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) in a separate case. The accused was booked under POCSO along with the mother (co-accused) of the child for allegedly making the child record the sexual activities between him and the child’s mother.
The Court noted that the accused had not violated the conditions imposed upon him in the previous bail, and therefore, admitting his anticipatory bail application, granted the bail. In the light of the mother’s involvement as the co-accused, the Court also directed the High Court Legal Services Authority to appoint an advocate to represent the child victim.
Background
The instant bail application was filed before the Court by the applicant (“accused”) in a peculiar matter of POCSO, where the mother of the victim child was the (“co-accused”).
To cement his application, the accused had referred to an FIR vis-a-vis a separate case registered against him at the behest of co-accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 307, 509, 323 and 506 IPC, in which he had been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court.
Decision of the Court
The Court perused the material on record and found that the Sessions Court that had granted accused the previous bail, had that the accused and the co-accused, both married individuals, prima facie appeared to be in an extra-marital relationship with one another.
The Court further found the charges against both accused were under Section 34 IPC, and Sections 11(i), (v), (vi) and 12 of the POCSO Act, and that the (victim) child was given a mobile phone by their mother to record the sexual activities that the accused and the mother were indulging in.
The Court was shocked to learn such allegations made against the co-accused and noted that she had not been taken into custody. Given the fact that the accused when granted bail earlier, had not violated any of the conditions imposed upon him, the Court was inclined to consider the instant anticipatory bail, if the accused fulfils the conditions so imposed upon him, should the instant bail be granted.
Further, taking note of the mother’s alleged involvement and being the co-accused, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the High Court Legal Services Authority to appoint an advocate from their panel to represent the victim.
In the light of the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court passed the following interim order:
- The accused was granted bail on furnishing PR (personal recognisance) Bond of Rs. 25,000
- The accused shall not contact the victim child in any manner
- The accused shall not influence the informant, the witnesses, or any other persons concerned with the case
-
The accused shall co-operate with the investigation and court proceedings
And other conditions were imposed. The Court stated that the bail of the accused shall be cancelled should the accused violate any of the conditions so imposed upon him.
[Umesh Radhai Saroj v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2066, decided on 05-07-2024]
*Order by: Justice Manish Pitale
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Priyanka S. Thakur, Advocate
For the respondents: R. M. Pethe, APP
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
