Gone are the days when child could be safely left with relatives: Madras High Court denies bail to POCSO accused

Gone are the days when the children could be safely left with relatives, lamented the Madras High Court recently while dealing with a case involving allegations of a minor girl having been sexually manhandled by a relative. .Justice M Dhandapani made the observation while rejecting petitions for anticipatory bail moved by the victim's aunt (mother's sister-in-law), the aunt's brother and the brother's friend accused of offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).."Gone are the days when the children could be safely left at the hands of relatives for the fear of outsiders causing harm to them. The psychological abuse caused by such persons is amply evident from the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The statement further reveals that the victim had clearly spoken about the acts of P-1 to P-3 and inspite of P-1 and P-2 being related to the victim, they have not spared the victim of the sexual abuse," the Court observed..The case involved allegations that the victim was shown obscene videos and photos by her aunt's brother and that she had been groped, pushed into a bedroom and manhandled by the aunt's brother and his friend. .These alleged incidents took place on various days and the victim is stated to have not disclosed the same initially following threats by the accused-petitioners, including her aunt (first petitioner). .The criminal complaint lodged against the petitioners cited provisions under the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (punishment criminal intimidation). .The three petitioners, however, asserted that the complaint was only filed in retaliation to a complaint earlier lodged against the victim's maternal uncle accusing him of offences under the POCSO Act for acts allegedly committed on his wife (first petitioner) and daughter. .It was further highlighted that the accused petitioners were before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) on the directions of a POCSO Court on the day when one of the alleged incidents took place. The petitioners told the Court that this could be verified by calling for video recordings from the CWC office. .The High Court, however, declined to examine these aspects in detail or express any opinion on the same."It is to be pointed out that this Court is not to conduct a roving enquiry as to the availability of the petitioners at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. It is for the investigating agency to investigate," the Court said..Justice Dhandapani added that merely because a complaint was earlier filed against the victim's uncle by the first petitioner, it would not be a ground to state that the present complaint is "only a counter-blast action.""It is to be pointed out that no mother would put her daughter in a jeopardizing situation, that too, under the garb of sexual abuse, merely to save her brother from a criminal action instituted against him", the Court said. .On this issue, the Court also said that the first petitioner cannot enlist any sympathy from the Court at the present stage by merely citing the earlier complaint. Any such sympathy would be misplaced, the Judge said. .The Court proceeded to dismiss the anticipatory bail pleas after opining that it is only tasked with examining whether there is prima facie case or note. .In this case, considering the available material and the victim's statement to the police, the Court opined that, prima facie, the petitioners appear to be the perpetrators of the alleged offence.."Without proper investigation, which is at the threshold, leaving the petitioners out on bail would not be conducive to the conduct of investigation and also to the safety and security of the defacto complainant and the victim, when the victim had categorically pointed a finger on the petitioners to the effect that they had threatened the victim with dire consequences if she divulges their evil acts to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the investigation being at the nascent stage, enlarging the petitioners on bail would be detrimental to the investigative process," the Court said. .[Read Order]