The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that in instances where the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act conflict with those of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act), the POCSO Act shall prevail. The court emphasized this because the POCSO Act is a subsequent special enactment designed specifically to address sexual offenses against children.
Justice Manisha Batra, while hearing a regular bail application in a case involving the provisions of both special enactments, stated that the petition is maintainable before the High Court. The court referred to Somashekar v. State (Karnataka High Court), which held that when two special laws conflict, the provisions of the latter enactment take precedence. The bench further observed that, absent contrary material presented by the State, the bail plea could not be considered non-maintainable.
The case involved grave allegations of repeated sexual assault on a minor victim. The petitioner faced charges under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(f), 506, and 457 of IPC; Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act; and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The minor alleged repeated sexual assault spanning over two years, with the perpetrator deceiving her under the pretense of marriage. During the investigation, the victim also recorded statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., reiterating the allegations.
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Samay Sandhawalia, argued that the petitioner deserved bail since the FSL and DNA reports were negative. However, the court dismissed the plea, noting the seriousness of the allegations and specific evidence recorded by the victim. Justice Batra highlighted that factors like prolonged incarceration or partial examination of witnesses were insufficient grounds for bail in such cases.
The court also stated that while the victim did not initially name the petitioner, her subsequent statements leveled explicit allegations of aggravated penetrative assault. The serious nature of these allegations, the court reasoned, outweighed the petitioner’s claims.
Case Details
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Haryana
Provisions Invoked: Sections 376(3), 376(2)(f), 506, 457, 376(2)(n) of IPC; Sections 4(2) and 6 of POCSO Act; Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act
The judgment underscores that the POCSO Act takes precedence in conflicts with earlier special enactments, maintaining the focus on safeguarding children’s rights while balancing procedural fairness.
Lawcutor 