The Bombay High Court has granted bail to two men accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in separate cases. Both cases revealed significant issues, including false information and misunderstandings, leading to the court’s decision to grant bail.
Key Takeaways
- The Bombay High Court granted bail to two men accused under the POCSO Act.
- In one case, the complainant admitted the case was filed due to a misunderstanding.
- In another case, the complainant and her advocate submitted false information and impersonated an affidavit.
Case 1: Misunderstanding Leads to Bail
A 28-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting his intellectually challenged cousin was granted bail after the cousin’s parent admitted the case was filed due to a misunderstanding following an altercation. The accused had been living with his cousin’s family in Mumbai, doing odd jobs for them since his father died in 2017. During an altercation in 2023, the accused pushed the cousin’s father, leading to a fracture in his hand. Following the injury, the father registered a case under the POCSO Act against him. The High Court noted that the accused had been behind bars for eight months and the chargesheet had already been filed in the case. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale granted bail, directing the accused to report at the police station and not visit the cousin’s house.
Also Read Sania Mirza Marriage Rumors: Tennis Star’s Father Speaks Out
Case 2: False Information and Impersonation
In another case, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his daughter after finding that the complainant (wife of the accused) and her advocate filed a false affidavit in the case. Justice Madhav J Jamadar observed that the conduct of the complainant and her advocate amounted to interference in the administration of justice. The applicant’s bail had earlier been cancelled by the sessions court based on certain WhatsApp messages containing indecent language and threats to Advocate Rohit Kumar. The court found that the complainant presented a false affidavit while opposing the bail application, leading to the conclusion that material was created or the applicant was manipulated to prompt him to send those messages. The court granted bail to the accused until further orders, directing the complainant, Advocate Rohit Kumar, and the State of Maharashtra to file their reply affidavits by January 30, 2024. The case was adjourned to February 2, 2024.
Conclusion
These cases highlight the complexities and challenges in the legal system, particularly in sensitive cases involving the POCSO Act. The Bombay High Court’s decisions underscore the importance of thorough investigations and the need for accurate information in the pursuit of justice.