Significant Risk That They May Exert Pressure On Witnesses: Bombay HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused In Badlapur Sexual Assault Case

The Bombay High Court has denied anticipatory bail to two accused persons in Badlapur sexual assault case.

The Court was dealing with an application filed by the accused seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the case registered for the offences under Sections 65(2), 74, 75, and 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 4(2), 6, 8, 10, and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

A Single Bench of Justice R.N. Laddha observed, “The POCSO Act was enacted to safeguard children from sexual crimes, prioritising the welfare of the child over the interest of the perpetrators. Section 19 of the Act specifically requires the mandatory reporting of such incidents. Failure to comply with this provision would result in screening the offenders from legal punishment. Considering that the victims are minors, the trauma they endure can profoundly affect their adolescent years, leaving them with lasting and irreparable psychological scars. At this critical stage, there is a significant risk that the applicants may exert pressure on witnesses or tamper with evidence.”

Advocate Vikas Patil appeared for the applicants/accused while Public Prosecutor H.S. Venegavkar appeared for the respondent/State and Advocate Kavisha Khanna appeared for the intervenor.

In this case, the prosecution alleged that on August 12 and 13, 2024, two minor girls, each around four years old, were sexually assaulted by a contractual employee at their school. The applicants/accused held the positions of Chairman and Secretary at the educational institution where the victims were enrolled. They were accused of failing to report these incidents, as mandated by Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 21(2) thereof.

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. While regular bail is generally considered the norm, the same principle does not apply to anticipatory bail. The Court must exercise careful and prudent discretion when deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail, considering each case’s specific circumstances. There is no straitjacket formula.”

The Court added that, while exercising such power, the Court must exercise caution, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially hinder investigation or lead to miscarriage of justice by allowing tampering with evidence.

“In light of these circumstances and the precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Mr Venegavkar rightly argues that these cases are not appropriate for granting pre-arrest bail. As a result, these applications for anticipatory bail stand rejected”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons.

Cause Title- Uday Suresh Kotwal & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:38819)

Appearance:

Applicants: Advocates Vikas B. Patil, Ajinkya J. Patil, Shivraj V. Patil, and Indrajeet V Patil.

Respondents: Public Prosecutor HS Venegavkar and APP Supriya Kak.

Click here to read/download the Judgment