Blind, disabled girl identifies attackers by voice, court denies bail to 3 juveniles in rape case

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal held that the minors do not deserve the concession of bail.

How matter came to light

• It was placed on record that a CWC official filed a complaint stating that he had gone to a place for some work when he noticed a girl child eating soil. Suspecting that she was pregnant, he made enquiries.
• When he enquired further, her mother informed him that the girl was blind and intellectually disabled.
• She further alleged that the child had been sexually assaulted and that the mother of one of the accused had threatened her against lodging a complaint.
• The official immediately called a counsellor who made enquiries from the girl child and took her for medical examination. It was added that the girl neither had an Aadhaar card nor a birth certificate and had never attended school.
• From physical appearance, she was declared CNCP (Child in Need of Care and Protection). Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under the Juvenile Justice Act against a boy.
• During the investigation, the boy allegedly disclosed the names of two other boys who were also implicated in the offence.
• Applications for regular bail of the three accused were moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, which considered the social investigation report and gravity of the offence and held that release of these boys from custody would defeat the ends of justice and may expose them to physical and psychological danger.
• Aggrieved by the same, the boys moved to a fast-track special court which declined the appeal.

‘Do not deserve bail’

• The high court noted that the survivor is an intellectually disabled, blind minor girl.
• It was noted that the offence was reported by the chairman of the CWC, who found her pregnant, eating soil and declared her a child in need of care and protection.
• The court held that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 is a beneficial legislation intended for reformation of juveniles/children-in-conflict with law.
• However, it was stated that while considering grant of bail to a juvenile, all surrounding facts and circumstances of the case should be considered and not merely the beneficial object of the legislation.
• The court held that the child in conflict does not deserve the concession of bail, considering the period of incarceration in place of safety.

Arguments

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Vishwajeet Singh Panwar argued that for more than 10 months, one of the minors was denied bail routinely.

It was added that the seriousness and sensitivity of the offence could not be a ground to deny bail and such considerations were extraneous to the Juvenile Justice Act.

It was added that the survivor had since been examined before the Juvenile Justice Board and she had stated that the person who committed the offence was someone else, not the juveniles in question.

Additional Advocate General Kshitij Bharti argued that the survivor was a minor, intellectually disabled child who was blind as well. It was urged that the repeated sexual assault on the minor victim led to her pregnancy. It was added that though the victim could not name any of the petitioners, she had identified them by their voices.

It was argued that the release of the petitioners on regular bail, on such grave and serious allegations, would defeat the ends of justice.