In a present case, a bail application has been filed by petitioner in order to seek Anticipatory Bail in case crime no. 0139 of 2023, under Section 354, 376 of IPC and Section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, and under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. It was observed by the Allahabad High court, benched by the Hon’ble Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav that the accused is charged under SC/ST and POCSO Act. It was also mentioned that the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner is maintainable under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.
About the POCSO Act, it’s an abbreviation for The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The sole purpose of this act is to save children, be it be a boy or a girl, from sexual harassment. The people who are involved in child trafficking for sexual purposes are also punished under this act in case of abetment of this act. Any person who commits crime under this provision can be sentenced to a life imprisonment or fine. Any sexual activity with a girl under the age of 18 without her consent will be considered rape and accused will be charged accordingly.
The accused is a teacher by profession. He’s been charged for molesting the minor girl who also belongs to the SC/ST community. When the girl went to bring a glass of water for her father, At that point of time the teacher dragged her in his house and touched her without her consent.
According to the POCSO Act, if anyone touches a minor girl i.e the one who is below the age of 18, without their consent will be amounted as an attempt to rape or rape. This case was reported on 27.07.23. The informant was the father of the victim, who lodged the FIR under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code(IPC) and under Section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, and under Section 36(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act.
The victim’s statement was recorded under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC. There was one more section that was added to the case, i.e., Section 376. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel of the informant with regard to the maintainability of the instant anticipatory bail application of the accused under the Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of bar contained under Section 18 and 18A of SC/ST Act and Section 438(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Hon’ble High Court relied on judgements given by the Apex Court of India in the case Prithviraj Chauhan V. Union of India and Others; (2020) 4 SCC 727, and Rinku V. State of UP. The high court of Allahabad ruled that the POCSO Act will prevail over the SC/ST Act, whenever an offence is committed under both the Act. In the case of Sharat Babu Digumati V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2017 (I) PLJR (SC) 382, The Hon’ble Court observed that when two special statutes are there which contain non obstante clauses, in those cases the latter will prevail. The Hon’ble Court also took into account the profession of the accused. It is said that teachers play a very important role in a society which is to make and prepare the youth of the country for its future construction instead of destruction. Teaching is a very respectable profession, if such types of unethical, heinous crime and offences are committed by teachers, this will create havoc and chaos and fear and a type of insecurity in the minds of students and children and the society will be ruined.
If teachers become rapists, they will not be able to inculcate any good values in them. Such people who keep potential to be someone’s role model but do one of the most immoral things of the world should not go unpunished and must get the just punishment from the court of law to curb and prevent any future crime in the society. Considering all the aspects, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad rejected the bail plea in the present case.
- By Siddhika
