Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case

Trial Must Reach Its Logical Conclusion Before Granting Bail in Heinous Offences, Gauhati High Court, in a judgment rejected the bail application of Wajid Hussain alias Munna, an accused in a POCSO case, ruling that the serious nature of allegations, coupled with the suicide of the victim, justified continued detention. The court emphasized that once a trial has commenced in heinous offences, bail should only be granted in cases of undue delay not attributable to the accused.

Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, while deciding Bail Application No. 3770/2024, ruled that: "Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, and dacoity, once the trial commences and prosecution witnesses begin their depositions, courts should be loath to entertain bail applications. The trial must reach its logical conclusion to ensure justice for the victim."

"Accused in Multiple Cases, Including Another POCSO Case"
The petitioner, Wajid Hussain, was arrested on 15th June 2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 115(T)/2024, arising out of Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 518/2023 under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act, 2012. The case also included charges under the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986.

The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the accused’s criminal history, involvement in four cases, and a pending POCSO case (No. 92(T)/2024). The State contended that granting bail at this stage would "affect the integrity of the trial and risk witness intimidation."

"Victim’s Suicide Raises Serious Concerns"
The court took note of the victim’s suicide, emphasizing that her sudden death under mysterious circumstances made it imperative that the accused remain in custody.

"One of the victims in this case has committed suicide under unexplained circumstances. The impact of such an event on the trial cannot be ignored, and the prosecution’s concerns about intimidation and tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out."

"Supreme Court Precedent Supports Bail Rejection"
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in X v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Criminal) No. 13378/2024), the court reiterated that: "Granting bail while the trial is ongoing can have serious implications on witness testimony and the overall fairness of the proceedings. Courts should avoid interfering with the trial process unless there is excessive delay or clear violation of an accused’s rights."

"Bail Can Only Be Considered If Trial is Unreasonably Delayed"
Dismissing the bail plea, the High Court ruled that: "As trial proceedings are ongoing and considering the seriousness of the allegations, the present petition for bail stands rejected. If there is undue delay in the trial without fault of the accused, he may approach the court again."

With this ruling, the Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that in cases involving serious sexual offences and suspicious circumstances surrounding the victim’s fate, bail should be denied to prevent interference with the trial.
 

Date of Decision: 04 February 2025