Case hearing halted over confusion in POCSO Act

Have to consider if POCSO Act is gender neutral or not: HC stays proceedings against woman accused of sexually assaulting minor

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday suspended proceedings in a POCSO case against a 52-year-old woman, noting the need to establish whether the law is gender-neutral, given that the accused is female. The court expressed astonishment, stating it was encountering such a case for the first time.

Justice M Nagaprasanna granted a temporary stay on proceedings against the petitioner and scheduled the next hearing for December 6, whilst directing prosecutors to submit their response. Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha, representing petitioner Archana Patil, highlighted that the complaint under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was filed after a four-year delay. The alleged incident occurred in 2020, with the FIR registered this year.

The bench remarked during proceedings, “POCSO case against a lady, this is the first time I have come across such a case. This is shocking.” The court added, “This is a very important case; we will have to lay down whether the POCSO Act is gender neutral or not.”

Pasha argued that the aggravated sexual assault charges against the petitioner involved a 13-year-old schoolboy, formerly their neighbour. He suggested the case stemmed from financial dealings, with the complainants attempting to avoid repayment.

Subsequently, the court issued the interim order. The interim order stated, “The case projects a strange circumstance. The petitioner is alleged to have violated the ingredients of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act against a 13-year-old boy. The petitioner is a lady of 52 years. The incident is said to have happened on May 1, 2020. The complainant is registered on June 26, 2024, after four years. The senior counsel would submit that there are a plethora of financial transactions between the parties. Using the child of 13-years of an alleged incident of the 2020 of the petitioner indulging in penetrative sexual assault against a boy, the crime is sought to be registered and police have filed chargesheet.”

No bail on completing half or 1/3rd sentence if accused is booked in multiple cases: HC
The HC has denied bail to a man facing charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for allegedly defrauding the bank of Rs 1,553 crore through fabricated documents and false loan disbursements. The accused in the case, K Ramakrishna, aged 73, previously served as Chairman of Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha and Sri Guru Sarvabhauma Souhanda Credit Co-operative Ltd.

Initially, Ramakrishna sought bail from the Trial Court under Section 479(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, citing trial delays and his custody period of two years and seven months. After this attempt failed, he filed his third bail application with the HC. The HC ruled that the petitioner’s claim under Section 479 BNSS regarding completion of one-third of the punishment period was invalid, given the multiple cases registered against him.

POCSO case against a lady...This is shocking. We will have to lay down whether POCSO Act is gender neutral or not– High Court bench

Justice HP Sandesh noted that Section 479 of BNSS’s benefits is subject to Section 479(2), and courts must consider the third proviso regarding multiple pending cases. The second proviso to Section 479(1) authorises courts to extend detention beyond the one-half period.

The gravity of the offence, involving fraud exceeding Rs 1,544 crore by the accused, was considered significant. The court referenced Section 531 of BNSS’s saving clause regarding the old Act’s applicability. The court concluded that given the different offences and multiple cases, the petitioner cannot invoke Section 479 of BNSS based on serving one-third of the punishment. The petition was consequently dismissed.