PANAJI
The Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) at Panaji has, for the fourth time, rejected the bail plea of a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, holding that the charges were “grave, heinous and serious in nature” and that his release could lead to intimidation of the survivor and witnesses.
While pronouncing the order, Presiding Officer Durga Madkaikar, observed that there was no change in circumstances to justify granting bail, particularly when a key witness -- the victim’s friend -- was yet to be examined.
“Considering that the offences allegedly committed by the accused are against his own daughter and the same are heinous in nature and against society at large. There is every possibility that he may threaten the victim and her friend and the remaining witnesses in the present case,” the court noted.
The accused, a tile fitter by profession, has been in judicial custody since his arrest and subsequent police custody, commencing on July 26, 2024. His three earlier pleas were dismissed on the grounds of the gravity of the offence and risk of witness tampering. The court also pointed out that none of the previous rejections had been challenged by the accused.
The defense counsel, appearing for the accused, argued that all material witnesses, including the victim and her immediate family, had already been examined, and that the forensic report did not conclusively link him to the offence.
During the arguments, he further contended that the accused, with no prior criminal record, was the sole breadwinner of his family and had been falsely implicated.
“His prolonged incarceration without any reason will cause prejudice to him. The FSL report creates a complete rupture in the chain of circumstantial evidence. There has been inordinate, unjustified delay in commencing the trial, so also there is a violation of mandatory SOP’s thereby failure to administer justice to the accused and as such has caused grave prejudice to the accused,” the counsel added.
The prosecution, on the other side, opposed the bail plea, stressing that the offences under Section 64 of BNS and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act were extremely serious, more so since the allegations were against the applicant’s own daughter. The Special public prosecutor maintained that even though several witnesses had been examined, “the possibility of the accused influencing remaining witnesses, intimidating the victim or absconding cannot be ruled out.”
The court agreed with the prosecution’s submissions, stating that whether the victim’s testimony was reliable or the forensic report carried weight was to be decided on merits at trial, not at the stage of bail.
