Did the Delhi HC Reject the Bail Plea for a Man Charged Under the POCSO Act?

Click to start listening
Did the Delhi HC Reject the Bail Plea for a Man Charged Under the POCSO Act?

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court's recent decision to deny bail for a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor underscores the importance of recognizing the gravity of such offenses. As the trial continues, the judiciary remains firm in its stance on protecting vulnerable victims.

Key Takeaways

  • The Delhi High Court dismissed bail for a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor.
  • Justice emphasized the tender age of the victim in the ruling.
  • The court noted the severity of the crime influenced its decision.
  • Arguments from the defense were deemed insufficient.
  • The trial remains active with several witnesses examined.

New Delhi, Jan 9 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has dropped the bail application of an individual accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, emphasizing that at the bail stage, the court is unable to evaluate the evidence and must consider the seriousness of the crime.

A single-judge Bench led by Justice Girish Kathpalia turned down the regular bail plea submitted by the accused, who was charged in an FIR lodged at Mehrauli police station under Sections 376, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

As per the prosecution, the case was initiated following the minor girl's testimony, where she alleged that the accused, residing on the same floor of their building, had been sexually harassing her since August 2021 by inappropriately touching and forcibly kissing her.

The girl further claimed that the accused attempted to engage in sexual relations with her multiple times and, on September 16, 2021, when she was alone at home, he sexually assaulted her before she managed to push him away, leading him to flee.

After revealing the incident to her mother, the latter confronted the accused and alerted the authorities.

In support of the bail plea, the defense counsel argued that there were numerous contradictions in the statements made by the prosecutrix, citing her depositions under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Additionally, it was argued that the testimony given by the prosecutrix’s mother also contained several discrepancies.

The Delhi High Court found none of these claims compelling enough to grant bail. "The arguments presented by the accused/applicant have been acknowledged only to be dismissed," remarked Justice Kathpalia.

"First and foremost, the evaluation of evidence must take into account the tender age of the victim of sexual assault. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the prosecutor, at the bail stage, this court cannot meticulously examine the evidence on record," the ruling continued.

Moreover, the Delhi High Court noted that "at this point, in the present case, the severity of the crime, particularly considering the young age of the girl, must be factored in."

“I do not believe this to be a suitable case for releasing the accused/applicant on bail. Hence, the bail application is denied,” stated Justice Kathpalia, observing that the trial remains ongoing and that five out of the total sixteen prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

Point of View

It is crucial to highlight the judicial system's unwavering commitment to the protection of minors in such serious cases. The Delhi High Court’s firm stance serves as a reminder of the importance of prioritizing the safety of vulnerable individuals over other considerations, reinforcing the need for stringent measures against offenders.
NationPress
10/01/2026

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the reason for the bail rejection?
The Delhi High Court rejected the bail application due to the severity of the crime and the tender age of the victim, emphasizing that evidence cannot be thoroughly examined at this stage.
What charges were filed against the accused?
The accused faces charges under Sections 376, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
What did the prosecution argue?
The prosecution presented the minor girl's testimony, claiming that she had been sexually harassed and assaulted by the accused multiple times.
How did the court respond to the defense's arguments?
The court found the arguments from the defense insufficient to warrant bail and emphasized the need to consider the victim's age and the seriousness of the allegations.
What is the current status of the trial?
The trial is ongoing, with five out of sixteen prosecution witnesses already examined.
Nation Press