Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in POCSO Case, Distinguishes Limited Role of Co-Accused Woman
Recently the Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused in an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), noting that her role was “prima facie” limited to just bolting the door and providing “privacy” to the accused couple. The judgment is important as it puts the judiciary’s main attention on the role of an individual as well as his criminal motives in the case of serious offences under the POCSO regime.
The woman is alleged to have introduced the prosecutrix to the principal accused, the report said. Her accusations stated she had locked the door from the outside to allow the couple to stay together. He based on this the criminal case was implicated in and she was taken into custody. She approached the High Court for protection under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure which has to do with anticipatory bail.
During the consideration of the issue the Court said that the woman was not accused of committing any sexual offence directly. At least at the preliminary stage, what she did did not seem to be more than providing privacy to the couple and the alleged crime itself did not manifest itself immediately on the material. Considering these factors, the Court has granted anticipatory bail on certain conditions.
The decision assumes significance as crimes committed under the POCSO Act are meted with an iron fist since the purpose of the Act is to shield minors from sexual exploitation. In such a situation, the courts are fairly sparing in granting anticipatory bail. But in the case of serious statutory offences, the Delhi High Court held, criminal liability ought not to be treated in a blanket fashion and everyone who may be remotely involved in the incident could not be held accountable.
The ruling is based on a core tenet of criminal law: intention, knowledge, and level of participation. It does not always suffice for an individual to be at the scene, or to have acted in an indirect manner, for their interrogation by police following the offence to be justified, except when there is prima facie evidence of conspiracy, abetment or active facilitation of the offence. This Court thus differentiated between the acts of the main accused and the involvement of the woman, which was rather limited.
The judgment also highlights the sanctity of personal freedom as enshrined in the Constitution, Article 21. The purpose of Anticipatory bail is to ensure that an individual is not unnecessarily put behind bars when there is no need for him/her to be subjected to custodial interrogation. Indian courts have repeatedly stated that arrest cannot be a punishable act and that only when it is substantively necessary for investigation or is warranted can it be deemed as meaning liberty must be restricted.
Meanwhile, the verdict is not an “acquittal” or a “not guilty” sentence. The High Court only issued a postponement order of arrest until the investigation is complete. In case of further evidence, however, indicating deeper involvement, the prosecution enjoys the right of going ahead under the law.
The case also offers a glimpse of the difficulties to be faced with adolescent relationships and consensual interactions that become problematic under POCSO due to the statutory age system. The rigid nature of the law in India has been increasingly running into the social aspects of youth couples and third-parties involved with them in courts.
In the end, the Delhi High Court’s judgment highlights the importance of scrutinizing the exact involvement of all the accused in the offence under the POCSO Act before limiting freedom of the individuals.
