Trial Court’s Bail Order Set Aside Due to Overlooked Evidence and Child Victim’s Vulnerability
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside the bail granted to Kriti Sahni, accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The accused was previously granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. The High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, found that the trial court failed to consider crucial evidence and statutory rigors mandated by the POCSO Act, especially given the vulnerability of the three-year-old victim involved in the case.
The case originated from an incident on April 30, 2026, when the minor victim returned home from school complaining of severe pain and bleeding, pointing to her private parts. Subsequent investigations revealed the involvement of the accused, identified as the victim's class teacher, who allegedly took the child to the basement and cleaned blood stains from the incident.
The victim's identification of the accused and the recovery of blood-stained items were pivotal pieces of evidence overlooked by the trial court, according to the High Court. The trial court's decision to grant bail was deemed mechanical and failed to balance the liberty of the accused with the gravity of the offense, the safety of the minor victim, and the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Mr. S.V. Raju, argued that the trial court impermissibly scrutinized the credibility of the victim's statement at the bail stage, a practice deemed inappropriate by the Supreme Court. The absence of the accused's name in the initial FIR was not found to negate subsequent identification and corroborative evidence.
The High Court emphasized the special legislative intent behind the POCSO Act, underscoring the need for utmost care and caution in cases involving sexual offenses against children. The Court criticized the trial court's reliance on the accused's clean antecedents and status as a mother, which overshadowed the victim-centric approach mandated by the POCSO Act.
Justice Banerjee’s order highlighted the risk posed by the accused's longstanding association with the school, potentially influencing material witnesses. The Court directed the accused to surrender within three days and stressed that the expression of views in the judgment should not affect the overall trial.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding vulnerable victims and ensuring justice in cases involving heinous offenses.
Bottom Line:
Bail granted to a respondent accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) was set aside due to the trial court's failure to consider crucial evidence, statutory rigors, and vulnerability of the child victim.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 6, 17, 21
