Bail On The Ground Of Parity Denied in POCSO Case: Minors Treated As A Class: Delhi HC

• While denying bail claimed on the ground of parity in the case of Suraj vs. State, the Hon’ble Delhi HC said that “the purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat minors as a class by itself and to treat them separately so that an attempt to sexual assault or harass or molest or abuse the minor entails graver and stricter consequences. The ultimate purpose of the law is the paramount well-being of the child and to protect minors from flagrant violence inflicted on them”.
• In the present case, the prosecutrix stated that she was in the fifth standard when she developed a friendship with Suraj. But after 2-3 months, Suraj took her to the Inderpuri forest after school hours and raped her. He took explicit videos and photos of her and threatened to leak them on the internet if she did not have intercourse with four of Suraj’s friends.
• Thus began a series of exploitation as a result of which the prosecutrix got pregnant. The prosecutrix was 17 years old when the FIR was registered.
• The learned counsel for the accused claimed bail on the ground of parity as two of the co-accused had been released on bail.
• The court enlisted the factors which have to be kept in mind while granting bail, namely-”

a) The nature and gravity of the accusation;
b) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
c) The danger of the accused absconding;
d) Reasonable apprehension of witness tampering;
e) Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
f) Danger of justice or processes thereof being stifled by the grant of bail”.

• The Court further observed that “Rape is an offence which not only violates the physical body of the survivor, but is also capable of inflicting trauma on the mental psyche which can end up persisting for years. Keeping in mind this nature of the offence, this court inhabits a duty to consider this matter with utmost care”.
• The Court held that the prosecutrix had been traumatised since she was 13 years old till she attained the age of 16 years. All the accused had been named in the FIR and charges had been framed against all of them. Further, they have been booked under section 6 of the POCSO Act as well, which prescribes a minimum punishment of 20 years and a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life (natural life).
• The petitioners were thus accused of a crime of a very serious nature and therefore, the court refused to release them on bail even on the ground of parity.

Judicary Special! Try answering the following in the comment section below-

When did the POCSO Act come into force?