Prosecutrix v. Piyush Saxena
ILR 2022 MP 1498
In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC 6190/2022
Before Justice Anand Pathak
Decided on March 31, 2022

Relevancy of the case: Application for bail cancellation in a case involving sexual molestation of a minor and recording of the act

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66D, 66E, 67, 67A, 67B)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)
• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 120B, 201, 354A, 354D, 376)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondent molested the prosecutrix several times while she was a minor. The court granted him bail, subject to certain conditions.
• The respondent’s family members opened a restaurant serving alcohol in front of the prosecutrix’s house, which created a nuisance.
• The respondent opened a hospital in the same building after shutting down of the restaurant upon complaints.
• Additionally, he delayed the cross-examination of witnesses, prolonging the trial for over three years.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The applicant’s counsel submitted that the respondent had violated the bail conditions by delaying the trial proceedings through continuous adjournments. He misused his liberty to harass the applicant and her family. Delayed cross-examination to harass the prosecutrix violated the spirit of Section 35 of the POCSO Act. This provision mandates the collection of evidence from the child within one month of cognisance of the offence and the trial completion within a year.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that technical difficulties due to the prison’s confinement before the bail and the non-availability of the cyber report resulted in delays. However, such instances have decreased since the bail. Relevant Supreme Court judgments mechanically prohibit bail cancellation without considering the surrounding circumstances.

Opinion of the Bench

• The Supreme Court has deprecated secondary victimisation caused by delayed proceedings. The respondent is deriving psychological gains by harassing the prosecutrix and her family.
• The objective of the POCSO Act is to protect children. Delays due to the respondent’s behaviour have deliberately delayed the trial to the detriment of the prosecutrix. This directly violates the spirit of the act.
• Judicial precedents suggest that a court can revoke the bail in the presence of supervening circumstances that are non-conducive to the trial. Such circumstances include interference with the due course of justice administration and abuse of bail concession.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the application and cancelled the respondent’s bail, ordering him to surrender before the trial court.

Jyotsna Sood, an undergraduate student at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2024.