On July 21, the Gauhati High Court suo motu cancelled the bail granted to Yumken Bagra, a Hostel Warden of a Government Residential School, accused of sexually assaulting 21 children – 15 girls and 6 boys – aged around 6 to 12 years from 2019 to 2022. The accused has been charge-sheeted under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court’s single judge, Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta, said, “Be that as it may. The conscience of the Court has been shaken by the way in which a case of such grave magnitude and sensitive nature has been dealt with in an absolutely cavalier fashion by granting bail to the main accused without assigning any plausible reasons. The larger issue which bothers the mind of the Court is regarding safety of the victims of the ghastly act of sexual assault after the release of the accused on bail.”
The court noted, based on the perusal of records, that all 21 victims were less than 15 years old when a person in authority, the hostel warden, committed the “dastardly act of sexual assault.” The court further noted, from the chargesheet, that the accused forced the children to watch pornographic movies and subject them to sexual assault. The court observed that the medical reports of the victims corroborate the allegations of sexual assault as marks of violence were noticed on their private parts.
The court further observed that the Special POCSO Court acted in gross disregard of legal provisions while granting the accused bail. The court noted that as the accused has been charged u/s 376AB (Punishment for rape on a woman under twelve years of age) of the IPC, the presence of the informant is mandatory u/s 439(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) at the hearing of the bail application.
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), Arunachal Pradesh, had opposed the grant of bail to the accused warden. The SPP contended that if the accused is released on bail, it would prejudice the prosecution’s case as the accused has the capacity to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence, which was yet to be recorded.
The Gauhati High Court observed that the Special POCSO Court granted bail to the rape accused without giving due consideration to the SPP’s objections. The court said that the trial court “granted bail to the accused in an absolutely casual manner despite observing that the statements of the victims reveal a grave offence having been committed.”
“Absolutely flimsy reasons were assigned by the Special Court for granting bail to the accused who being the Hostel Warden, was entrusted the duty of ensuring the safety of the children lodged in the Hostel acted in a demonic manner and sexually assaulted the young children over a period of almost 3(three) years and also exposed them to pornographic material. The trial of an accused charge-sheeted for such serious offences need not wait for the apprehension of the absconding accused and proceedings can even be continued by separating the trials,” the court said.
Thus, the court suo motu cancelled the bail granted to the rape accused. The court further remarked that there is a need to sensitise Special Judges in POCSO Courts across the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Mizoram and Assam. The court directed the Director of the Judicial Academy, Assam to initiate the process of training and sensitising all Judicial Officers dealing with POCSO Act cases in the States of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The court listed the case for the next hearing on July 27, 2023.
