‘Trust was breached’: Why Himachal Pradesh High Court refused bail to 61-year-old accused of assaulting toddler

The Himachal Pradesh High Court was hearing a bail plea of a 61-year-old man accused in a POCSO case. (Image generated using AI)

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a bail plea of a 61-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a three-year-old child, emphasising that the “heinous” nature of the crime and the “breach of trust” reposed by the survivor’s parents disentitle the petitioner from the concession of bail.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla was dealing with the bail plea of a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that variations in the survivor’s mother’s statement are not sufficient to grant bail to petitioner.  (Image is enhanced using AI)

“The difference in the ages of the petitioner and the survivor and the fact that the informant had left the survivor in the house of the petitioner in trust to take care of her, which trust was breached, would make the offence heinous, disentitling the petitioner from the concession of bail,” the court observed.

Findings

TL;DR: The police recorded the survivor’s statement in which she specifically stated that the petitioner had digitally penetrated her.

• The police recorded the survivor’s statement in which she specifically stated that the petitioner had digitally penetrated her.
• Prima facie, her statement shows the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of the crime.
• The petitioner’s side argument was that there are variations in the informant’s statement, which will not help the petitioner.
• The informant was not an eye-witness and she narrated what was told to her by the survivor.
• Any variation in her statement will not falsify the statement of the survivor, who is the best witness in the present case.
• The variations are not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner.
• The petitioner is aged 61 years, as per the petition, and the survivor is aged three years, and the parents had left the child in the petitioner’s house in trust.

Background

TL;DR: According to the prosecution, the survivor’s parents used to leave the child with the petitioner, their neighbor, while they went to work.

• The petitioner filed a plea for deeking bail in a case under Section 65(2) (rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and with fine or death) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.
• According to the prosecution, the survivor’s parents used to leave the child with the petitioner, their neighbor, while they went to work.
• Following this, the survivor revealed that the petitioner had digitally penetrated her.
  Petitioner’s advocate submitted that the informant had changed her version during the investigation.
• It is further argued that the report of analysis does not connect the petitioner to the commission of a crime, and no injuries were found during the medical examination of the survivor, which falsifies the prosecution’s version that the petitioner had digitally penetrated her.
• The state submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence and the survivor had specifically named him, and this statement has to be, prima facie, accepted as correct.