4 min readNew DelhiJul 23, 2026 02:00 PM IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refused bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor, observing that once a child is subjected to sexual violence, it has lasting adverse effects on the victim’s physical, emotional and mental development and that the child’s future gets “shattered into pieces.”
Justice Sumit Goel was hearing the bail application filed by the man who was arrested in Febraury 2025 after he allegedly assaulted a minor boy.
“While considering matters involving sexual offences, a court has to be mindful that the incidents of sexual violence against the minor child in a society are not only grave but the future of the victim has been lowered and shattered into pieces. Once a victim, being a minor child, has been hurt physically, emotionally and mentally at a tender age, the same is bound to have adverse effects on the overall growth and development of the said human being,” the July 21 order read.
Justice Goel added that the proceedings should be handled with due care and precaution, especially when the court is dealing with an application for releasing the accused on bail, pointing out that it is in the “interest of justice and the overall interest of society at large”.
Threatened with dire consequences
The prosecution claimed that the man enticed the boy to accompany him to a secluded place on a false pretext and later sexually assaulted him. It further claimed that the man threatened the child with dire consequences if he disclosed the incident to anyone. Due to fear and intimidation, the child remained silent for some time.
Justice Sumit Goel added that the allegations relate to a sexual offence against a child, which, if proved, carries “severe punishment” under the law.
Subsequently, the matter was disclosed to the complainant, which led to the registration of the FIR. During the investigation, the child was medically examined, his statement was recorded before the competent authority, and other evidence was collected.
The man was subsequently arrested on February 16, 2025
‘Child consistent about incident’
The high court noted that the child had supported the prosecution’s case before the trial court and remained consistent in describing the incident. “The testimony of the victim constitutes substantive evidence and carries substantial evidentiary value at this stage,” the court added.
Story continues below this ad
Referring to the petitioner’s arguments regarding the absence of penetrative assault and the effect of such medical evidence on the prosecution case, the court held that these are matters requiring detailed appreciation during trial.
The high court concluded that the nature of the allegations, the age of the child and her testimony, and the specific role attributed to the petitioner indicate his involvement in the alleged offence. The court added that the allegations relate to a sexual offence against a child, which, if proved, carries “severe punishment” under law.
“The allegations against the petitioner are grave, and the statement of the victim (child) further corroborates the case of the prosecution at this stage. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed,” it added.
Arguments
The man was represented by advocate Inder Preet Singh, who submitted that his client has no connection with the alleged allegations levelled in the instant case and he has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question.
Story continues below this ad
He added that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution since the same does not reflect any penetrative assault and the prosecution version is highly doubtful.
It was further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period from Febraury 16, 2025 and out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 14 have been examined, including the survivor and complainant.
Additional Advocate General Adhiraj Singh Thind argued that the allegations against the petitioner were grave in nature. He submitted that the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR, his role had remained consistent throughout the investigation, and the child had already appeared before the trial court and fully supported the prosecution case. He therefore sought dismissal of the bail application.
Justice Sumit Goel added that the allegations relate to a sexual offence against a child, which, if proved, carries “severe punishment” under the law.