Mumbai: The general principle of law is that bail is the rule and jail the exception, but special circumstances of each case must also be considered, particularly when dealing with offences against children, the Bombay High Court observed.
The bench of Justice Amit Borkar said that while every accused person has a fundamental right to liberty, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the larger interests of justice, public order and the protection of victims, especially when the victims are minors, India Today reported.
Refusing to grant bail to a 25-year-old student accused of sodomising a minor at Aksa beach, near Mumbai, last year, Justice Borkar said that the POCSO Act represents the ‘legislative intent to provide stringent protection to children from sexual offences’.
“Courts, as guardians of justice, have a solemn duty to ensure that this legislative objective is not defeated by a liberal approach to bail in such serious cases.”
The trauma suffered by child victims in sexual assault cases is immense and long-lasting, the high court further observed.
“The criminal justice system must be sensitive to their plight and ensure that they are not subjected to further victimisation through intimidation or influence by the accused persons,” Justice Borkar added.
Details of the crime
A 17-year-old boy had gone fishing with his friend on July 31, 2024. They were sitting on the beach around 6.30 pm when a man approached them and asked them to come near the bushes as something had happened there. Despite being hesitant initially, the boys went to take a look.
When they reached the bushes, the accused held the victim, forcibly removed his clothes, and committed unnatural carnal intercourse against his will.
As the victim began to cry, the accused revealed his identity as Mayur Wankhede and told the boy he was free to inform anyone about what had transpired.
The victim and his friend registered an FIR, and the accused was arrested. Following investigation, a chargesheet has also been filed.
“There exists sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The medical examination report constitutes crucial evidence in the present case. The report clearly indicates signs of recent forceful penetration and states that sexual violence cannot be ruled out,” the bench observed.
“The nature of the alleged offence is such that it not only causes physical harm to the victim but also inflicts severe psychological trauma that may have long-lasting effects on the minor victim. Courts have consistently held that while considering bail in cases involving sexual offences against minors, the traumatic effect on the victim and the possibility of the accused influencing or intimidating the victim or witnesses must be given due consideration,” the bench added.
Justifying refusal of bail, the court said the victim is a minor and there is a reasonable apprehension that if released on bail, the applicant may attempt to influence the victim or other witnesses.
