Pocso accused applies for bail to marry survivor, Karnataka HC says 'no'

BENGALURU: The high court has refused to grant bail to a person accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, declining to take into consideration the suspect's assurance that if granted bail, he would make sincere efforts to marry the 17-year-old survivor.
"If such pleas are accepted as a rule, it would result in the court allowing the non-compoundable offences being compounded by the process of the court, which is not the intention of the legislature in enacting the relevant statutes," Justice V Shrishananda observed in his order.
"Keeping the above aspects in view, this court is of the considered opinion that the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would make sincere efforts to marry the girl, cannot be countenanced in law," Justice Shrishananda clarified.
Even though the girl has stated that she had a physical relationship with the accused on volition, the court believes that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to accept the request for bail by resorting to the special powers vested under section 439 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), the judge added.
Dismissing the petition filed by the 23-year-old accused from Bagepalli town in Chikkaballapur district, Justice Shrishananda pointed out that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that heinous offences such as suicide, murder and rape can neither be quashed nor compounded.
The judge, however, said it is open to the petitioner to approach the court with a bail plea if there is any positive, changed circumstance in the case after examination of material witnesses.
The petitioner was booked by Bagepalli police last April, after the girl's mother complained that her daughter had been kidnapped while she was at the church. Police later traced the girl, along with the petitioner, and it came to light that the petitioner had married her in a temple and had a sexual relationship with her.
The petitioner, a bar bender by profession, had claimed they were married on April 3, 2022, and added that no element of force was resorted to in establishing a physical relationship. Therefore, he claimed, there was no ground for attracting either Section 4 or Section 6 of the Pocso Act.
On the other hand, opposing the bail plea, the government advocate argued that the girl was a minor and on the pretext of a love affair, the petitioner and the girl had indulged in a sexual act.