| POCSO Court rejects bail in minor blackmail-rape case, says heinous offences need stern view | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 19: The Special Fast Track Court dealing with POCSO cases in Jammu has rejected the bail plea of a man accused of allegedly blackmailing a minor with nude videos and subjecting the complainant to repeated sexual assault, holding that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and cannot be viewed with leniency.
Special Judge Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases), Jammu, Renu Dogra Gupta, dismissed the bail application of Mohd Yousuf of Chenani, Udhampur, who was arrested on July 8, 2026 in connection with FIR No. 215/2026 of Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu.
The case has been registered for offences under Sections 308, 351, 115(2), 75 and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
According to the police report referred to by the Court, the complainant alleged that the accused blackmailed the minor by showing nude videos and, on that pretext, allegedly committed rape several times. The accused was subsequently arrested during investigation.
The accused sought bail claiming that he had been falsely implicated and had remained behind bars since July 8. His counsel argued that continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment and infringe his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Adv Rupak Ratta appeared for the accused, while Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Gupta represented the Union Territory of J&K. The prosecution strongly opposed bail, arguing that the allegations were serious and heinous, the investigation was still underway and there was apprehension that release of the accused could lead to influencing witnesses, evasion of trial or repetition of similar acts.
The defence, however, maintained that the accused had been wrongly implicated and deserved an opportunity to defend himself while on bail. It also relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in support of the plea for release.
After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that the law of bail requires a balance between protecting society from alleged criminal conduct and preserving the presumption of innocence of an accused until conviction.
The Court noted that while the basic principle remains "bail, not jail", the rule is not absolute and courts are required to consider the interests of the victim and society, particularly in cases involving serious non-bailable offences.
The Special Judge observed that courts cannot adopt an "ivory tower approach" while deciding bail in serious cases and must also ensure that the cause of public justice is not abandoned.
"The court must also play its own role in ensuring that the cause of public justice is not abandoned," the order said, while stressing the seriousness of the allegations and the initial stage of investigation.
The Court further held that judicial discretion in bail matters has to be exercised keeping in view the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence and the totality of circumstances, and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
On examining the material available on record, including the police report, the Court observed that nothing had surfaced at this stage which could support the plea of innocence raised by the accused in his bail application.
Coming down heavily on sexual offences involving minors, the Court observed that a POCSO offence is a heinous crime which cannot be viewed with leniency, adding that sexual violence causes deep and lasting harm to the dignity and psychological well-being of a victim.
The Court said cases involving sexual crimes against minors are required to be dealt with "utmost sensitivity" and need stern treatment by the criminal justice system.
Taking into account the gravity of the allegations, the fact that investigation was still at its initial stage and the chargesheet had yet to be filed, the Court held that no case for grant of bail was made out at this stage.
Consequently, the bail application was dismissed as being devoid of merit, with the Court clarifying that observations made in the bail order would remain confined to disposal of the application and would have no bearing on the merits of the main case.
(JNF) |
|
