Antipatory Bail in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) : Section 17 : Punishment for penetrative sexual assault on a child – in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Overview of POCSO Act and Section 17: Penetrative Sexual Assault

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was established in India in 2012 with the primary objective to protect children under the age of 18 from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography. It is a comprehensive law that provides stringent punishment for perpetrators of child sexual abuse, considering the sensitive nature of these offences and their impact on young victims. The Act defines a child as any person below the age of eighteen years, emphasizing the necessity of having age-specific laws to handle cases involving the sexual exploitation of minors.

Section 17 of the POCSO Act specifically addresses the grave offence of penetrative sexual assault. This section is critical for understanding the severity of the crime and the subsequent punishment as per the legal framework. Penetrative sexual assault, as defined under this section, involves the insertion, to any extent, of any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with them or any other person. It also includes the act of applying one’s mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or making the child to do so to such person or any other person. The law treats such an act with a child as a serious offence, cognizant of the physical as well as the mental trauma inflicted on the victim.

In recognition of the gravity of the crime, the punishment for penetrative sexual assault is severe, to serve as a deterrent and to signify the zero-tolerance stance of the law against child sexual abuse. Conviction for such an offence can lead to imprisonment not less than seven years which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. This strict punishment underscores the commitment of the legislative framework to safeguard the well-being of children and to punish those who compromise the safety and security of minors. The POCSO Act with specific provisions like Section 17 demonstrates the legislative intent to create a robust mechanism for the protection of children from heinous sexual crimes.

The Criterion for Granting Anticipatory Bail Under POCSO

The criteria for the granting of anticipatory bail under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, are stringent and designed to safeguard the interests of the child victim, while also considering the rights of the accused. The judiciary is tasked with maintaining a delicate balance between these often conflicting interests. Anticipatory bail, by its nature, is a direction to release a person on bail, issued even before the person is arrested.

When it comes to POCSO cases, the court’s discretion to grant anticipatory bail is significantly curtailed. Possible grounds for granting anticipatory bail may include situations where:

  • There is a demonstrable lack of prima facie evidence against the accused.
  • The accused has a credible reason to believe that the charges are motivated by extraneous considerations and that there’s a possibility of false implication.
  • There are exceptional circumstances or the existence of a special reason or situation, which may, according to the court, merit relief in terms of anticipatory bail.
  • Evidence and testimony available suggest that the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses is minimal.

It is essential to recognize that given the sensitive and serious nature of POCSO Act cases, courts approach the provision of anticipatory bail with a great deal of circumspection. For the judiciary, the primary concern remains the potential risk and threat to the safety and well-being of the child involved, as well as the likelihood of repetition of the offence.

As an overarching measure, the courts also consider the severity of the punishment that the accused is likely to face if convicted. Given the stringent punishments possible under the POCSO Act, the severity of the offence plays a significant role in the court’s assessment of such applications. Moreover, the social stigma attached to the offences under this act often leads to heightened scrutiny of anticipatory bail applications.

Applicants for anticipatory bail under the POCSO Act are also expected to demonstrate strong roots in the community, which, in theory, reduces the risk of flight. The court may impose further conditions to ensure that an accused person released on anticipatory bail does not pose any additional risk to the complainant or society at large and would be available for the purposes of trial.

It is, however, critical to understand that the criteria and considerations for granting anticipatory bail will vary from case to case, and depend significantly on the specific circumstances surrounding each case. Regardless of the situation, the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act remains clear: to ensure that the justice system prioritizes the safety, dignity, and justice for child victims of sexual offences.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rulings on Anticipatory Bail in POCSO Cases

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has been pivotal in interpreting the provisions of the POCSO Act as they pertain to anticipatory bail. The court has delivered several judgments which elucidate the conditions under which anticipatory bail can be granted in cases involving allegations of sexual offences against children.

In its judgments, the High Court has often reiterated the need for the judiciary to exercise its discretion judiciously while dealing with applications for anticipatory bail in POCSO cases. The court has acknowledged the legislative intent of the Act, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the necessity to protect the victims from further harm. This protective stance reflects the acknowledgment that accused individuals, if released, could potentially intimidate the child victim or obstruct the course of justice.

One of the significant observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is related to the credibility of the allegations and the evidence against the accused. Assessing the prima facie truthfulness of the allegations is crucial, and the courts have been known to delve deep into the particulars of each case, scrutinizing the available evidence before making a decision.

Judicial pronouncements from this High Court have also focused on the credibility, character, and past records of the accused. This is to ensure that individuals with questionable backgrounds or those who pose a significant risk to the victim and the community are not easily afforded the benefit of anticipatory bail.

“The courts have a duty to ensure that the process of justice is not converted into a shield to protect the accused from the due process of law, especially in cases involving vulnerable victims,” as exemplified in one of the rulings by the court.

In granting anticipatory bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has occasionally laid down stringent conditions that the applicant must adhere to. These may include:

  • Restrictions on contacting or approaching the victim or their family.
  • Mandatory reporting to the local police station at specified intervals.
  • Prohibiting the accused from leaving the local jurisdiction without prior permission of the court.

The Court’s approach reflects a measured attempt to balance individual liberties with societal interests, especially the well-being of children who have been subjected to sexual offences.

Moreover, the High Court’s rulings emphasize the necessity for thorough investigation by police and other authorities, while also ensuring that there is no room for the misuse of the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. These judgments serve as important precedents, guiding the lower courts in the state on handling sensitive cases involving child protection with the seriousness and discernment they require.

The High Court has also reiterated that even while granting anticipatory bail, the courts need to ensure that such a decision does not, in any way, diminish the seriousness of the offences under the POCSO Act nor compromise the protection afforded to the child victims under the Act. This alignment of judicial discretion with legislative intent underscores the judiciary’s commitment to uphold the spirit and purpose of the POCSO Act.


List of Most Recommended Lawyers:


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

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

3. Advocate Krish Mehra
  • 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 Krish Sharma
  • 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 Myra Desai
  • Experience: more than 30 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

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

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

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