The High Court reaffirmed that in cases involving grave allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and analogous sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, anticipatory bail will generally not be granted. This judgment upholds existing precedent and has binding effect for similar cases in the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/42939/2025 of SUNIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011235042025 |
| Date of Registration | 06-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to an accused in a case involving serious allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor under Section 6 POCSO and relevant provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that given the gravity of the offence and the specific, serious allegations against the petitioner involving aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The Court specifically noted the nature of the allegations, the statements of the complainant (father of the victim), and the legal position regarding bail in such matters. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, affirming a strict approach in such grave offences. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The complainant alleged that his minor daughter was missing during the night and was found, in the presence of three male accused including the petitioner, in a compromising situation, with allegations of aggravated sexual assault. The petitioner claimed to have been falsely implicated and relied on CCTV footage as alibi. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, and as reference for Supreme Court in similar factual contexts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not to be granted in cases involving serious offences under Section 6 POCSO Act and comparable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Emphasizes the gravity of allegations and the sensitive status of the victim (a minor) as a primary consideration.
- Documentary evidence such as purported alibis (e.g., CCTV footage) may not, at the pre-trial anticipatory bail stage, override statutory presumptions and gravity of charges.
- The case further cements the position that aggravated forms of sexual assault on minors attract strict scrutiny at the stage of bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court outlined the allegations as extremely serious, noting the complainant’s detailed statement regarding finding his minor daughter in a compromising situation with the petitioner and co-accused.
- The petitioner’s plea of false implication and alibi by CCTV footage was considered insufficient at the anticipatory bail stage, especially in light of the serious nature of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- The State and complainant submitted the seriousness of the charge precluded the grant of anticipatory bail, and the Court accepted this submission.
- Citing the gravity and specificity of the allegations, the Court declined to consider merits or pre-judge evidence, focusing strictly on the appropriateness of anticipatory bail in such a factual and legal context.
- No mention is made of reliance on previous judgments or statutory interpretation beyond the application to the facts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed false implication in a case of gang rape.
- Asserted he was a taxi driver, only dropped off co-accused Naveen, and was not part of the crime.
- Presented a pen drive containing alleged CCTV footage as proof of innocence, arguing it was not considered by the lower court.
- Sought grant of anticipatory bail.
Respondent (State and Complainant)
- Emphasized the serious nature of the allegations, specifically of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a minor.
- Stressed that the gravity of the charge made the case unsuitable for anticipatory bail.
- Supported dismissal of the bail application.
Factual Background
The case arose from an FIR filed by the father of the minor victim, alleging that on 15.06.2025 his daughter went missing at night and was later found in a neighbour’s house in a state of undress, along with three male accused, including the petitioner. The FIR cited offences under Sections 70(1), 115, 332(C) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner contended he was merely a taxi driver who dropped off one of the co-accused and was not involved in the alleged act. Application for anticipatory bail was made before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pertaining to aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
- Relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 70(1), 115, 332(C)) were invoked in the FIR.
- The judgment applied a strict interpretation of the POCSO Act and criminal code provisions in the context of anticipatory bail, focusing on the gravity of the offence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms prior stringent standards regarding anticipatory bail in grave sexual offences against minors.