JAMMU: A Special POCSO Court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of a dance instructor accused of molesting a minor girl during dance classes, observing that offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are grave crimes that cannot be viewed with leniency.
The order was passed by the Court of Special Judge Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases) Jammu, presided over by Renu Dogra Gupta, in a bail application arising out of FIR No. 116/2025 registered at Police Station Nowabad.
The accused, identified as Sunil Dandotra, son of Sethi Lal and a resident of Saini Mohalla, Talab Tillo Jammu, had sought release on bail in a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
The accused was represented by Advocate Gagan Oswal and Advocate Abhay Sharma, while the Union Territory of JK was represented through the Public Prosecutor.
Allegations
According to the prosecution case recorded in the court order, the allegations against the accused are that he allegedly abused and molested the minor victim during a dance class on June 9, 2025.
Following the allegations, Police Station Nowabad registered FIR No. 116/2025 under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused.
The prosecution informed the court that the charge sheet in the case had already been filed before the Special Court on September 20, 2025 and the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence on October 30, 2025.
According to the prosecution, out of 12 listed witnesses, three witnesses — including the victim and her parents — had already been examined before the court.
Defence Seeks Bail
Seeking bail, the accused argued that he had been falsely implicated in a “false and frivolous” case.
The defence submitted that charges had already been framed and statements of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses, including the complainant, had already been recorded.
Counsel for the accused argued that the victim and other witnesses had not supported the prosecution’s case and therefore continued detention of the accused was unjustified.
The defence further submitted that the accused had remained in custody since August 10, 2025, and prolonged incarceration would amount to “pre-trial punishment” and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defence also argued that the accused needed to be released on bail to properly prepare his defence during the ongoing trial.
Prosecution Opposes Bail
Opposing the bail application, the prosecution argued that the allegations against the accused were serious, heinous and non-bailable in nature.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that offences under the POCSO Act carry severe punishment, including imprisonment extending up to life imprisonment, and therefore bail could not be claimed as a matter of right.
The prosecution further argued that if released on bail, the accused could influence witnesses, evade trial or otherwise hamper the judicial process.
The prosecution maintained that the victim and her parents had “fully supported the prosecution story” in their statements before the court.
The prosecution also contended that several important witnesses, including the investigating officer, were yet to be examined and releasing the accused at this stage could adversely affect the trial.
The Public Prosecutor argued that offences involving sexual crimes against minors were offences “against society at large and against the weaker sex in particular” and required strict handling by courts.
Court Examines Evidence
After hearing both sides and examining the charge sheet, prosecution objections and witness testimonies already recorded during trial, the court observed that no material had emerged supporting the innocence of the accused.
The court specifically noted that the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution’s version during her testimony before the court.
“Nothing has surfaced which could support the innocence of the petitioner/accused as pleaded in the application rather the prosecutrix/victim in her statement recorded in this court has supported the prosecution story fully,” the court observed.
The court further noted that the medical evidence collected during the investigation also supported the prosecution’s case.
Supreme Court on Bail Principles
While discussing principles governing grant of bail in non-bailable offences, the court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Babu Singh vs State (AIR 1978 SC 527).
The Special Court reproduced the observations of noted jurist Benjamin Cardozo quoted by the Supreme Court regarding judicial discretion in bail matters.
“The judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure,” the order quoted.
The court observed that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised considering the gravity and seriousness of allegations and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Strong Observations
The court also made strong observations regarding sexual violence against women and children.
“Offence under POCSO Act is a heinous crime which cannot be viewed with a leniency,” the court observed.
The judge stated that victims of sexual crimes are often left with “a feeling of degradation, humiliation and guilt for the rest of her life.”
“It is not only a crime against the person of a woman; it is a crime against the entire society,” the court observed.
The court further noted that sexual violence destroys the psychological well-being of victims and violates their dignity, honour and constitutional rights.
“The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely,” the order stated.
Bail Rejected
The court observed that statements of nine prosecution witnesses, including the investigating officer, were still to be recorded during the trial.
Considering the gravity of allegations, the victim’s testimony and the stage of the trial, the court held that no case for the grant of bail was made out.
“Application being devoid of any merit, is accordingly rejected,” the court ordered.
The court clarified that observations made in the bail order were confined only to the disposal of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the main trial.
