Srinagar, Sept. 14, KDC: Observing that granting pre-trial liberty to a close relative accused of sexual violence during an ongoing investigation was “too premature”, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of forcibly grabbing and touching his 14-year-old niece at his residence in Pulwama district.
Setting aside the bail order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, Justice M. A. Chowdhary held that the sessions court committed a serious error by releasing the accused before the investigation concluded and before the child could depose in court. The High Court directed the accused to surrender within one week, failing which police must take coercive steps to take him into custody.
The case dates back to June 13, 2025, when the victim’s brother lodged a written report at Police Station Rajpora. According to the complaint, his minor sister, aged about 14 years, had gone to stay at her maternal aunt’s house in Rahmoo, Rajpora. On the evening of May 27, 2025, when the girl went to sleep in a room, the accused, who is the husband of her maternal aunt, entered the room, tried to molest her, forcibly grabbed her, and touched her body in a manner that hurt her. He also threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed the ordeal to anyone.
The victim managed to escape the room and narrated the entire episode to her aunt. However, the aunt advised her to remain silent to protect the family from disrepute. The girl subsequently gathered courage and informed her brother, leading to the registration of FIR No. 56/2025 under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
During the investigation, police verified her age as 14, recorded her statement before a magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and invoked Section 9 of the POCSO Act for aggravated sexual assault due to the familial relationship between the accused and the victim.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing probe, the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, granted bail to the accused on July 11, 2025, prompting the Union Territory administration to challenge the order before the High Court.
Scrutinizing the record, the High Court observed that the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act underlines the sensitivity of the law in safeguarding children from sexual violence.
“In the instant case, although, the Court below has granted bail to the accused/ Respondent herein having regard to the penalty provided for the offences under Sections 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, however, it is a case where the child was subjected to sexual violence in a house of her close relatives and, that too, by a close relative. The allegation of threatening was already alleged in the written complaint, whereupon the FIR was lodged. The victim, who had also been examined before a Magistrate, had made incriminating statement against the Respondent, thereby supporting the version narrated in the FIR. In such a situation, the Court below should have considered the bail plea, in light of the perspective as to whether the grant of bail will enhance the course of justice or thwart the same,” the Bench said.
“Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the aim and object of the POCSO Act, the grant of bail in favour of the Respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, was too premature to be granted during the investigation of the case, inasmuch as, the Respondent, who being the husband of the maternal aunt of the victim, may have exerted pressure and tried to influence the hapless child not to depose against him during trial. The Court below had not even waited for completion of the investigation in the case before granting of bail. It would have been in the interests of justice had the Court below declined the plea of grant of bail in favour of the Respondent till the victim was examined before the Trial Court, after framing of charge against the Respondent,” the High Court held.
Holding that the sessions court order suffered from perversity, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the Union Territory administration and cancelled the bail.
The Bench directed the accused to surrender before the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajpora, if the investigation is still underway, or before the competent trial court if the charge sheet has already been presented, within a period of one week from the date of the judgment.
Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar appeared for the Union Territory administration, while Advocate Tariq M. Shah represented the respondent. (KDC)
