Bombay High Court Denies Bail to Serial Child Rapist: Reinforcing the Paramount Duty of Protecting Children

Introduction

In a significant ruling safeguarding the rights and safety of minors, the Bombay High Court rejected the bail plea of a 28-year-old man from Kharghar, accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting his 11-year-old niece. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s unwavering stance that protection of society and potential victims, especially children, must outweigh the personal liberty of habitual offenders under such serious charges.

The bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed that granting bail to the accused would not only “send a wrong message to society” but also endanger the victim’s safety and compromise the integrity of the ongoing trial.


Case Background

The accused, a married man, was arrested by Panvel City Police for raping his 11-year-old niece, making this his fourth case of child sexual abuse. According to the prosecution, the accused exploited the young girl over several years, beginning when she was just 8 years old.

The child’s father was incarcerated in a MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) case, and her mother was frequently engaged in legal proceedings, leaving the child under the supervision of her uncle — who used this opportunity to commit repeated sexual assaults.

The horrific abuse came to light in November 2021, when the survivor’s brother caught the accused in the act. The matter was immediately reported to the police, leading to his arrest under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.


Judicial Reasoning and Observations

Justice Borkar categorically refused to grant bail, observing that the accused’s criminal history of three prior sexual offences showed a clear pattern of predatory behaviour. The court noted:

“The protection of children in society is of paramount importance, and the Court cannot take the risk of releasing an accused person who has demonstrated a propensity for committing sexual offences against minors.”

The bench emphasized that releasing such an individual would jeopardize the safety and security of the victim, undermine public confidence in the justice system, and potentially influence the fairness of the trial.

The court also stressed that long pre-trial incarceration could not outweigh the threat posed to society, given the gravity of the offence and the accused’s repeated criminal conduct.


Statutory Framework

  1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

    • Section 3: Defines penetrative sexual assault on a child.

    • Section 5: Specifies aggravated penetrative sexual assault, including cases where the offender is a relative or person in authority.

    • Section 6: Prescribes rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years, extendable to life, and fine.

    • Section 29: Presumption of guilt against the accused once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.

    • Section 30: Deals with the presumption of culpable mental state.

  2. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

    • Section 376AB: Punishment for rape of a girl below twelve years, providing for rigorous imprisonment of not less than 20 years or the death penalty in aggravated cases.

    • Section 354A-D: Addresses sexual harassment, assault, and use of criminal force against women.

    • Section 506: Criminal intimidation.

  3. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

    • Section 437 & 439: Discretionary power of the courts to grant bail but limited in heinous and repeat offences.


Constitutional Provisions

  • Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
    While the right to personal liberty is fundamental, the court clarified that it must be balanced with the rights of victims and public safety considerations.

  • Article 15(3)
    Empowers the state to make special provisions for women and children, justifying stringent protection mechanisms like the POCSO Act.

  • Article 39(e) & 39(f) – Directive Principles of State Policy
    Mandates the state to ensure that children are protected from abuse and moral or material abandonment.


Judicial Precedents

  1. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977)

    • The Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, but clarified that exceptions exist in cases involving heinous offences and potential harm to society.

  2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan Lal (2015)

    • The Apex Court upheld a life sentence under POCSO, emphasizing that child rape is one of the most heinous crimes and must be dealt with iron-handedly.

  3. Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra (2021)

    • The Supreme Court condemned any form of leniency in POCSO-related offences, reiterating that touching or exploitation of minors, even indirectly, warrants strict penal action.

  4. X v. State of Maharashtra (2023)

    • The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that granting bail to habitual child sex offenders poses a grave threat to minors and contradicts the principles of restorative justice.


Court’s Broader Message

The ruling sends a powerful message that habitual sexual predators cannot seek leniency under the guise of prolonged detention or lack of evidence when their criminal history reveals consistent deviant behaviour.

Justice Borkar observed that granting bail in such a case would “jeopardize the moral fabric of society and endanger children who are its most vulnerable citizens.”


Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision aligns with India’s evolving jurisprudence emphasizing victim-centric justice in sexual assault cases. The judgment reinforces the court’s commitment to zero tolerance for child abuse and ensures that habitual offenders are kept away from society to prevent further victimization.

This case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role not only as a dispenser of justice but also as a guardian of societal morality and child safety — echoing the principle that justice must protect the innocent first.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

District Judges' Appointment and Service: Constitutional Framework and Contemporary Imperatives

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Constitutional Provisions Governing Union Territories and Delhi: A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles 239 to 240

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Rights of a Arrested Person in India