Allahabad HC: Priest Denied Bail in Shocking POCSO Assault Case

In a significant legal matter concerning allegations of sexual abuse against a minor by a priest, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to the accused due to the seriousness of the offense. The case involved a 12-year-old boy, who alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by the priest.

The Court, led by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, expressed concern over the gravity of the alleged crime, which, according to the Court, “has shaken the conscience” of the judicial system. Despite arguments from the defense, the Court decided that no prima facie case for bail had been made at this stage. The following sections outline the facts of the case, the prosecution’s position, the defense’s arguments, and the Court’s decision.

The Alleged Offense:

• The victim was a minor boy aged about 12 years at the time of the incident.
• According to the prosecution, the boy, who was an orphan under the care of his uncle, went to a fair in February and did not return.
• The boy was later found by his uncle in a distressed state, and upon questioning, revealed that a priest had taken him near a temple and engaged in unnatural sex with him.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was subsequently filed against the accused priest, leading to his arrest.
• The FIR cited offenses under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes non-consensual anal sex, and penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Court Proceedings:

• The accused priest sought bail from the Allahabad High Court.
• The defense counsel, Advocate Arun Kumar, argued that the priest had been falsely implicated due to village enmity. The defense further claimed that the informant (the child’s uncle) had an ulterior motive to remove the priest from the temple, leading to the lodging of a false FIR.
• The defense also pointed out that the injury report did not indicate any offense under Section 377 and that no external injuries were found on the minor boy during the investigation.
• The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, asserting that the alleged actions of the priest had “shocked the public conscience” and that the severity of the crime justified denying bail at this stage.

Court’s Ruling:

• Court’s Reasoning: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal examined the statements made by the victim and concluded that there was no reason for a minor to falsely accuse the priest.
• The Court stated: “From the perusal of the statement of the victim, who is a minor aged about 12 years, it is clear that the applicant has committed an offense which has shaken the conscience of this Court.”
• Bail Denied: The Court further emphasized the gravity of the offense and ruled, “Looking to the gravity of the offense committed by the applicant, prima facie, no case for bail is made out, at this stage.”

Click to read- Jamna Giri vs. State