In the case of G. vs the State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court on 12^th March 2022 denied the bail to a man accused of committing oral sex with an 8-year-old minor girl stating that long detention in jail does not entitle an accused for bail.

Facts leading to the prosecution case:

An FIR was registered in the year 2017 against the accused applicant for committing oral sex with the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused was booked under Section 376 (Punishment for rape) of IPC and Sections 3 (Penetrative sexual assault) and 4 Punishment for penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [POCSO], 2012, and arrested.

After living in jail since 1^st September 2017, he filed a bail application in the Court alleging that he had been falsely involved in the case and he had not committed any such alleged offence.

Arguments:

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution allegation was fake and contrived, because the complainant’s family was a renter of the accused-bail applicant, and when he requested them to evacuate the residence, the false story was created. It was contended that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence committed may be seven years and the applicant has already served about four years and seven months in jail, therefore, considering the period of incarceration, the applicant may be released on bail.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the State contended that because the crime in question is so heinous, the present application should not be released on bail. He drew the Court’s attention to the medical examination report, which stated that the penis was inserted in the victim’s mouth.

Observations of the High Court:

• Considering the victim’s recorded statement where she has categorically informed that the present applicant had committed oral sex with her; the Hon’ble Court held that it cannot be presumed that the victim has given such a statement under the influence of her parents as she was about 8 years old at the time of the incident.
• In addition, after examining the medical report, the Court found that the penis was penetrated in the mouth of the victim.

Considering the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Court rejected the bail application on merits. Further, the Court orders to conclude a trial of the case at the earliest.

– Vaishali Jain, Advocate & Associate – Child Safety at Work & Surbhi Singh