[POCSO Act] Jabalpur Sessions Court Denies Bail To Businessman Accused Of Raping Minors Under Guise Of Spa Centre

An Additional Sessions Court in Jabalpur has refused to grant bail to a businessman accused of raping two minors on the pretext of running a spa establishment.

Additional District & Sessions Judge Nisha Gupta opined that the relief should not be granted to the accused, considering the seriousness of the crime involved and the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

The accused, Aman Sharma, who was arrested on 05.03.2024, is also the uncle of one of the survivors. He is currently lodged in Central Jail, Jabalpur.

Crime No. 79/2024 was registered at Madan Mahal Police Station, Jabalpur, for offences under Section 376 IPC, Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act, 1956.

On the morning of 04.03.2024, it was stated that the mother learned that her daughter had not taken the exam for a paper in 12^th Standard. When enquired, the daughter revealed that her uncle had been abusing her and her friend for the past week by calling both of them to the spa owned by him.

The prosecution version also stated that they were called to the spa regularly, and they were even asked to visit other places in order to earn more money.

According to the prosecution, both the complainant-mother's daughter and her friend were raped by the petitioner-uncle. The accused is capable of exerting undue pressure on the survivor and her friend if released on bail, the objector submitted.

During the hearing of the bail application, the accused raised certain discrepancies in the birth certificate of the survivor related to the accused through his wife. According to the accused, the birth certificate mentioned the survivor's date of birth as 31.05.2005, whereas for availing the benefits of Laadli Lakshmi Yojana, the mother fraudulently denoted it as 31.05.2006.

The court, after perusing Section 161 and 164 statements, refused to indulge in a roving inquiry so as to ascertain the date of birth at the stage of bail. The judge noted that both the survivors were given Rs 5000/- each after the alleged sexual abuse, as per the statements given by the victims. A perusal of the case diary and the prosecution version indicates that a prima facie case has been made out in the matter, the court added.

The accused submitted that false accusations had been foisted upon him by the mother of the survivor since she was unable to repay Rs 50,000/- that the former had earlier loaned to her. The accused/petitioner also submitted that he was a businessman from a well-reputed family, and as a permanent resident of Hathilal Colony in Jabalpur, there is no probability that he would elope.

However, the court rejected the first bail application of the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C by referring to the case diary, which prima facie indicated that the accused uncle, instead of protecting the minors, sexually abused both the survivors who were prima facie below 18 years old.

Advocate Paarithosh Dwivedi appeared for the accused/petitioner. Advocate Ravi Sinha, representing the objector mother of one of the survivors, vehemently opposed the bail application. The Special Public Prosecutor for the state also prayed for denying the relief of bail to Mr. Sharma.

Case Title: Aman Sharma alias Aryan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: Bail Application No. 1070/2024

Click Here To Read/ Download Order