Antipatory Bail in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) : Section 10 : Punishment for aggravated sexual harassment – in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Overview of POCSO Act and Section 10: Aggravated Sexual Harassment

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was established in 2012 in India and serves as a comprehensive piece of legislation aimed at protecting children under the age of 18 from sexual abuse and exploitation. This law was specifically designed to safeguard the interests of minors and ensure that sexual offences against children are reported, recorded, investigated, and tried without adding to the distress of the young victims of such crimes. The POCSO Act provides definitions for various forms of sexual abuse, including penetrative and non-penetrative assault, sexual harassment, pornography involving children, and outlines the punishment for each defined offence.

Section 10 of the POCSO Act addresses the offence of ‘Aggravated Sexual Assault’. This category is more severe than ordinary sexual assault because it accounts for certain aggravating circumstances which could include the offender being in a position of authority or trust, or the assault leading to the grievous physical or mental harm of the child. Under Section 10, if a person commits aggravated sexual assault, they shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years, and also be liable to a fine. The specific circumstances which lead to an offence being categorized under this section are critical to understanding its application and serve to underscore the Act’s intent to deal with more serious sexual crimes against children with greater severity than other offences.

The POCSO Act, with its inclusion of stringent measures for crimes like aggravated sexual harassment, presents a zero-tolerance policy against the sexual abuse of children. It is designed to be child-friendly in every stage of the judicial process and provides for the establishment of Special Courts for the trial of such offences, ensuring that the testimony of the child is taken in a manner that is not traumatic or intimidating, and the identity of the child is protected from the public and media at all times.

Legal Provisions for Anticipatory Bail under POCSO in Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, serving as the common institution of justice for the states of Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, has crafted a nuanced approach towards the issue of anticipatory bail under the POCSO Act. Given that the legislation is stringent and highly protective of children’s rights, the High Court often navigates a careful path, balancing the need for shielding alleged victims with upholding the rights of the accused.

In terms of legal provisions, while the POCSO Act does not explicitly prohibit the granting of anticipatory bail, the provisions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which deals with the anticipatory bail for offences under legal purview in India, must be aligned with the intent and the stringent nature of the POCSO Act. It’s notable that POCSO cases are non-bailable, and thus, the court exercises additional caution in such matters.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has established certain parameters that are considered when dealing with applications for anticipatory bail under the POCSO Act. These parameters include factors such as:

  • The nature and gravity of the accusations.
  • The applicant’s antecedents and the likelihood of them influencing the case or tampering with evidence.
  • Possibility of the accused fleeing from justice.
  • The possibility of false implication, especially in cases where there is a delay in lodging the FIR, or there are family disputes.

Furthermore, every case is considered on its own merits, and the court also takes into account the specific circumstances surrounding each individual application for anticipatory bail. In certain situations, the High Court has granted anticipatory bail to applicants if sufficient grounds were presented to allow for such a relief, especially if the court was satisfied that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had committed the offence or that the applicant would not be available for trial.

It is critical to point out that the Punjab and Haryana High Court requires the investigating agencies to carry out their work with due diligence and respect for due process, while also ensuring that the rights of the accused are not arbitrarily infringed upon. The court has underscored the necessity for the accused to be available for trial and has taken a firm stance against any form of custodial harassment.

Yet, while there is leeway for anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has consistently reiterated the seriousness of offences covered under the POCSO Act and has often refrained from providing anticipatory bail where substantial evidence pointed towards the accused’s complicity in such crimes. This complex balancing act showcases the court’s emphasis on maintaining the integrity of the judicial process while protecting the best interests of vulnerable children.

Recent Judgments and Interpretations by the Chandigarh High Court on Anticipatory Bail in POCSO Cases

The Chandigarh High Court’s engagement with the complex and sensitive issue of anticipatory bail under the POCSO Act has yielded a series of recent judgments. These decisions are crucial in interpreting the legal landscape surrounding anticipatory bail for those accused under the Act. In evaluating applications for such relief, the court has demonstrated a keen awareness of the Act’s purpose – to protect children from sexual offences while ensuring a fair legal process for all parties involved.

An important aspect of these interpretations has been the court’s meticulous attention to the circumstances under which bail is sought. The recent rulings highlight an insistence on corroborative evidence when assessing the veracity of the allegations. Key factors that often influence the court’s decision are:

  • The severity of the offence and the evidence on record.
  • The risk of the accused absconding or obstructing the course of justice.
  • The character of the accused, including any previous criminal behaviour.
  • The potential for tampering with the witnesses or the evidence.
  • The probability of the accused repeating the alleged offence.
  • The impact on the victim and their family.

In cases where the allegations appear to be prima facie true and the potential threat to the complainant or witnesses is substantiated, the court has taken a cautious stand against granting anticipatory bail. Conversely, the court has been willing to entertain bail applications if it discerns malafide intent in the accusations or when the ties to the community and the likelihood of cooperation with the investigation process make the applicant’s presence during the trial a reasonable assurance.

A tangible thread in these judgments is the court’s concern for the guidelines established by the Supreme Court of India, which stipulate that the power to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The emphasis is on a case-by-case examination, eschewing any blanket approach, thereby adhering strictly to justice rather than procedural technicality.

In one of its notable judgments, the Chandigarh High Court reasserted that the purpose of detention is neither punitive nor preventative, explaining that personal liberty is a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions. The court has thereby reinforced the principle that personal liberty of an accused can only be curtailed when there is a clear indication of the necessity to do so. This has been a significant milestone, highlighting the judiciary’s role in protecting the constitutional rights of individuals while upholding the sanctity of laws designed to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

Through its recent judgments, the Chandigarh High Court has clarified that while the safeguarding of children’s rights is paramount, this does not equate to an automatic denial of anticipatory bail in every POCSO case. It has accentuated the need for a sensitive approach that balances the law’s rigour with the constitutional rights of the accused, recognising that misuse of stringent laws can have severe consequences for social justice.


List of Most Recommended Lawyers:


1. Advocate Aarav Patel
  • Experience: more than 20 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

2. Advocate Yuvraj Bhatia
  • Experience: more than 25 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

3. Advocate Avani Patel
  • Experience: more than 35 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

4. Advocate Ananya Banerjee
  • Experience: more than 40 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

5. Advocate Aarushi Jain
  • Experience: more than 30 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

6. Advocate Zayn Chawla
  • Experience: more than 50 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

7. Advocate Aradhya Malhotra
  • Experience: more than 30 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

8. Advocate Aryan Chopra
  • Experience: more than 25 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

9. Advocate Ananya Malhotra
  • Experience: more than 20 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

10. Advocate Arya Singh
  • Experience: more than 45 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer