Jammu Court Denies Bail to Three Accused in Minor Trafficking Case

SRINAGAR: A Special Court in Jammu has dismissed the bail applications of three individuals accused in a case involving the alleged trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor girl, deeming the offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act as grave crimes that warrant no leniency.

Information was available with The Chenab Times that the order was issued by the Court of Special Judge Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases) Jammu, presided over by Renu Dogra Gupta. The ruling addressed three separate bail pleas stemming from FIR No. 52/2023, which was registered at the Nowabad Police Station.

The accused whose bail requests were denied are Bishan Dass, a resident of Kathar Dansal in Jammu; Mohammad Tousif, from Rajouri; and Vidya Lal, originally from Kishtwar. The legal proceedings saw various advocates representing the accused, including Advocates Asheesh Singh Kotwal and Pankaj Basotra for Bishan Dass, Advocates Syed Yawar Ali Shah and Mehtab Gulzar for Mohammad Tousif, and Advocates Amjed Khan and M.M. Manhas for Vidya Lal. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor.

The case has been registered under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 372 (selling minor for purposes of prostitution), and 109 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 4 (sexual assault), 6 (aggravated sexual assault), and 16 (child in protection home) of the POCSO Act.

Allegations of Exploitation

According to the prosecution’s account, police received credible information on April 10, 2023, indicating that a minor girl was allegedly being forced into prostitution at the Tourist Camp Hotel in Jammu. The prosecution stated that the victim had been brought to Jammu from Bihar by an individual identified as Jamshed Alam.

The charge sheet filed against the accused detailed that Mohammad Tousif and Bishan Dass were employees of the hotel. Another accused, Akshay, was identified as the hotel owner. The prosecution further alleged that during a police raid on the hotel premises, Vidya Lal was apprehended inside a room with the minor victim.

Bail Pleas and Prosecution’s Opposition

The accused individuals sought bail on grounds of alleged false implication and the prolonged period they had spent in custody. Their defense argued that the prosecutrix had not supported the allegations against the accused in her subsequent testimony before the trial court, suggesting that continued detention would constitute pre-trial punishment and violate constitutional rights.

The defense further submitted that the accused had been in custody since April 11, 2023, and required an opportunity to mount an effective defense during the trial. However, the Special Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail applications, characterizing the alleged offenses as serious, heinous, and non-bailable. The prosecution informed the court that out of 14 listed witnesses, 10, including the victim, had already been examined.

The prosecutor highlighted that the victim had initially provided statements corroborating the prosecution’s case and made incriminating statements against the accused. However, it was alleged that the victim later altered her statement after allegedly being influenced by the accused. The prosecution contended that the victim’s testimony should not be considered in isolation but rather in conjunction with the entirety of the evidence on record. Reference was also made to Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which establishes a statutory presumption against the accused unless proven otherwise.

Court’s Observations and Rejection of Bail

After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the available evidence, the court observed that no material had emerged to support the innocence of the accused. The court specifically noted that the prosecutrix had initially corroborated the prosecution’s version. While acknowledging that the victim had changed her statement during her second deposition, the court stated it could not consider this statement in isolation, especially when prior evidence existed against the accused. The court also took into account the medical evidence collected during the investigation, finding it supportive of the prosecution’s case.

The Special POCSO Court issued strong remarks regarding sexual violence against children, stating, “Offence under POCSO Act is a heinous crime which cannot be viewed with a leniency.” The court emphasized the lasting psychological impact on victims, noting their potential for lifelong feelings of degradation and humiliation. It further described such acts as crimes not only against individuals but against society as a whole, violating the victim’s dignity, honor, and constitutional right to life.

The court pointed out that four prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined and concluded that releasing the accused at this stage could prejudice the ongoing trial. The court dismissed all three bail applications, stating that nothing had surfaced to support the petitioners’ innocence and that no case had been made out for the grant of bail. The court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not influence the merits of the main trial.

---

---

Follow us on

---

(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)