Mumbai: observing that the cheeks touched without sexual intentions would not attract violations of “sexual violence” under the Pocso law, the Bombay High Court on Friday triggered a guarantee to a 46-year-old chicken seller who spent 13 months in prison.
The court said the main evaluation of material on records did not suggest the defendant touched minor cheeks with sexual intentions.
“In consideration of these facts, in my view, a case was made to release the applicant in a guarantee,” said the court.
The High Court, though, clarified that observations were made “interpreted as expressions of opinions for warranty purposes and the same thing would not be in any way to influence other trials”.
The defendant was arrested in July 2020 after the eight-year-old girl filed a complaint that the defendant had touched it inappropriately when he went to his shop.
Bail Pleas of the Chillus was previously rejected by court courts.
Advocacy RAM Prasad Gupta appeared to be accused and delivered that the defendant was wrongly involved by a complainant for business competition.
The defense said the defendant was employed, had roots in the community and had his family to maintain.
“Thus, the question arises about escaping applicants and is not available for trial,” send a gupta.
It was also conveyed that violations cannot be punished with death or life imprisonment.
It is said that the maximum sentence provided for alleged violations is a seven-year prison.
FIR was filed on July 29, 2020.
Allegedly that at 1:30 a.m., a complainant, who lived in the neighborhood, saw the defendant signaling the girl to come to his shop.
The girl entered.
Allegedly that after some time the defendant came out, looking around, back and pulled the shutter down.
Furthermore alleged that when with the help of others, the shutter was opened, the defendant was found to behave inappropriately with the child.
The complainants bring children and parents to the police station and complain.
After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet.
Touching Children’s Cheeks Not Sexual Attack: HC
