Mumbai: Observing that it was a heinous offence, the Bombay High Court has refused to grant bail to one Navnath Chavan who is charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamdar rejected Chavan’s bail application observing: “We are not inclined to entertain this appeal since the alleged offence is very heinous in nature which would attract the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of POCSO.”
Chavan’s advocate Rajesh More argued that the alleged offence had taken place on January 28, 2019, whereas the FIR was lodged on March 8, 2019. Besides, the injury shown in the medical report is fresh. “If the incident had taken place way back on January 28, 2019, and the victim was medically examined on March 9, 2019, there cannot be a fresh abrasion/injury,” argued More.
Stating that the allegations in the FIR are false and concocted, More said that there is an enmity between the families and case was filed to seek revenge.
Opposing the bail application, additional public prosecutor KV Saste argued that Chavan had committed a heinous offence and hence stringent provisions of the POCSO was applied. Justifying the delay, Saste said that it was only on March 7, 2019 that then 10-year-old boy confided in his father that Chavan, who resides in the adjoining house, asked him to go with him under the pretext of teaching him to drive a vehicle. “As the boy refused to go with Chavan, he abused the child,” argued Saste.
While rejecting Chavan’s bail plea, the HC observed: “Upon a careful perusal of the allegations, in our opinion, there cannot be slightest doubt in the mind that the alleged incident is heinous in nature and at the relevant time, the victim was minor, 10-year-old.”
Besides, the medical examination report reveals that the boy was abused and it discloses the nature of injuries suffered by the boy, adds the HC in its order.
Observing that prima facie offence was disclosed, HC refused to grant bail to Chavan merely on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR.
“The apprehension that in case, the appellant (Chavan) is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal since the alleged offence is very heinous in nature which would attract the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,” observed HC.
The HC has, however, directed the special court to expedite the trial and complete it within six months.