Court Highlights Gravity of Offences and Statutory Presumption of Guilt Under POCSO Act, Denies Bail Despite Prolonged Custody
In a significant ruling dated August 29, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Justice M.A. Chowdhary, dismissed the bail application of four accused charged with kidnapping and gang-raping a 15-year-old minor girl. The accused were charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 363 (kidnapping), 376-DA (gang rape), and 109 (abetment), as well as under Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.
The case originated from an FIR registered on February 11, 2022, at Bemina Police Station, Srinagar, following the disappearance of the minor girl who was later recovered from the Tourist Reception Centre, Srinagar. The victim's statement, recorded with utmost sensitivity, detailed the horrific incident where four men allegedly abducted and gang-raped her in the Tangmarg forests. These allegations were supported by medical, digital, and forensic evidence collected during the investigation.
Despite the accused having been in judicial custody since February 15, 2022, and citing their clean antecedents and social standing, the petitioners' plea for bail was rejected by the trial court and subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioners argued that their prolonged detention without conviction violated their fundamental right to personal liberty and stressed the absence of credible incriminating evidence.
However, the High Court meticulously considered the nature and severity of the offences, the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 30 of the POCSO Act, and the ongoing trial process where 22 out of 28 prosecution witnesses had already testified. The court emphasized that the heinousness of the crime, coupled with the potential risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, outweighed the grounds for bail.
Citing precedents such as Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) and K.A. Najeeb (2021), the court reaffirmed that while prolonged incarceration can be a factor in granting bail, it is not an automatic right, especially in cases involving serious offences against minors. The court also noted that the trial was progressing at a "phenomenal pace," negating the petitioners' claim of undue delay.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of child victims under the POCSO Act and sends a strong message against crimes of sexual violence against minors. The bail plea dismissal ensures that the accused remain in custody to face trial without risk of interference with the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Bail application for accused charged under Sections 363, 376-DA IPC, and Sections 6 and 17 of POCSO Act rejected considering the nature and gravity of offences, prolonged incarceration not deemed sufficient to outweigh the statutory presumption of guilt and seriousness of allegations.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 363, 376-DA, 109 IPC; Sections 3, 4, 6, 16, 17, 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Sections 480, 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
