Punjab & Haryana HC Declines Pre-Arrest Bail To Mother Booked Under POCSO For Forcing 2-Yrs Old Son Into Sexual Activities With Paramour

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a mother who was accused of sexually abusing her 2 years old son with her alleged paramour, observing that the role of a mother is of care and nurturing the child and any deviation from this standard especially in a manner that harms one's own child, invites strict action under the law.

Justice Sumeet Goel observed, "The alleged actions and conduct of the petitioner, particularly as the mother of the victimized child, are deeply concerning and have brought shame, casting a negative impact on the Society as a whole. Such actions, if proven true, are not only a violation of her duties as a mother but also reflect a disregard for the legal and moral responsibilities inherent in the mother-child relationship."

The Court was hearing the anticipatory bail plea filed by the mother who was accused of forcing her 2 years old son in illicit activities with her alleged paramour.

The FIR was lodged under Sections 3, 4, 11(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Amended) 2012, 2019 and offence under Sections 6, 10, 15, 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Amended) 2012, on a statement made by the complainant, who alleged that his wife (petitioner herein) had developed illicit relationship with co-accused approximately 04 years ago. 

According to the complainant, he recently discovered two disturbing images of his 02 years old son on the mobile phone of his wife. In these images, the petitioner's alleged paramour, appears to be mistreating and abusing the young child.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the alleged criminal act attributed to the petitioner has a tendency to severely impact the fabric of society at large.

"It is pertinent to mention here that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at ensuring personal liberty of an individual. However, while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to strike a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest," added the Court.

Justice Goel highlighted that the Court must also consider the gravity of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the impact on the Society and the need for fair and free investigation.

The relief must not unduly hamper the rights of the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation, it added.

Given the severity of the allegations as also the nature of the conduct attributed to the petitioner, the Court opined, "offence of such magnitude must be properly investigated and the truth must be brought on record."

The judge further pointed that there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner.

"The nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the specific role ascribed to the petitioner essentially lead to unequivocal conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail," it added.

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate with Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anup Singh, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate and

Mr. Nissim Aggarwal and Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocates for the complainant. 

Title: SXXXXX v. XXXXXX 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 347