SRINAGAR: A Special Court in Jammu has rejected bail applications filed by three accused in a case involving alleged trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor girl at a hotel in Jammu, observing that offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are “heinous crimes” which cannot be dealt 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 composite order disposing of three separate bail applications arising out of FIR No. 52/2023 registered at Police Station Nowabad.
The accused whose bail applications were rejected are Bishan Dass of Kathar Dansal Jammu, Mohammad Tousif of Rajouri, and Vidya Lal of Kishtwar.
Advocate Asheesh Singh Kotwal and Advocate Pankaj Basotra appeared for Bishan Dass, Advocate Syed Yawar Ali Shah and Advocate Mehtab Gulzar represented Mohammad Tousif, while Advocate Amjed Khan and Advocate M.M. Manhas appeared for Vidya Lal.
The Union Territory of JK was represented through the Special Public Prosecutor.
The case has been registered under Sections 342, 372 and 109 IPC along with Sections 4, 6 and 16 of the POCSO Act.
Allegations
According to the prosecution case recorded by the court, police on April 10, 2023 received information from reliable sources that a minor girl was allegedly being subjected to prostitution at the Tourist Camp Hotel in Jammu.
The prosecution alleged that the victim had been brought from Bihar to Jammu by one accused, identified as Jamshed Alam.
According to the charge sheet, accused Mohammad Tousif and Bishan Dass were employees of the hotel, while another accused, Akshay, was stated to be the owner of the hotel.
The prosecution further alleged that when police raided the hotel premises, accused Vidya Lal was allegedly “caught red handed inside the room with the minor victim.”
Following the raid, police registered FIR No. 52/2023 under Sections 372, 342 and 109 IPC along with Sections 4, 6 and 16 of the POCSO Act.
Bail Plea by Accused
The accused sought bail primarily because they had been falsely implicated in the case and had remained in custody for a long period.
The defence argued that the prosecutrix had already been examined before the trial court and had not supported allegations against the accused in her later testimony.
Counsel for the accused further argued that continued detention would amount to “pre-trial punishment” and violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defence submitted that the accused had been in custody since April 11, 2023 and required an opportunity to properly defend themselves during the trial.
Prosecution Opposition
Opposing the bail applications, the Special Public Prosecutor argued that the offences alleged against the accused were serious, heinous and non-bailable in nature.
The prosecution informed the court that out of 14 listed witnesses, 10 had already been examined, including the victim.
The prosecutor submitted that the victim had made two statements before the court, one supporting the prosecution’s case and another subsequently retracting from identification of the accused.
According to the prosecution, the victim had initially “fully corroborated the prosecution’s story and made incriminating statement against the accused persons.”
However, the prosecution alleged that in her later statement, the victim changed her stand after allegedly being “won over by the accused persons.”
The prosecution argued that the victim’s testimony could not be viewed in isolation and had to be appreciated in light of the entire evidence on record.
The prosecution also referred to Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which raises a statutory presumption against the accused in certain offences unless the contrary is proved.
The Special Public Prosecutor further argued that release of the accused on bail at this stage could adversely affect the trial and shake public faith in the criminal justice system.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides and examining the material on record, the court observed that no material had surfaced supporting the innocence of the accused.
The court specifically noted that the prosecutrix had initially supported the prosecution’s version in her testimony before the court.
“No doubt the victim has taken U-turn during her second statement which was recorded when the absconded accused cross examined her. But Court cannot take her statement in isolation when there is other evidence too and earlier she deposed against the accused person,” the court observed.
The court also took note of the medical evidence collected during the investigation, observing that it supported the prosecution’s case.
Strong Remarks
In its order, the Special POCSO Court 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 court further remarked that victims of such 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 said.
The judge also observed that sexual violence violates the victim’s dignity, honour and constitutional right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“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 reads.
Bail Rejected
The court noted that statements of four prosecution witnesses were still to be recorded and observed that releasing the accused at this stage could affect the trial.
“Nothing has surfaced which could support the innocence of the petitioners/accused persons,” the court observed while rejecting the applications.
Holding that no case for grant of bail was made out, the court dismissed all three applications.
The court, however, clarified that observations made in the order were limited to disposal of the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the main trial.
