The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied regular bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a young boy, ruling that sexual violence against children inflicts severe physical, emotional, and psychological harm that can shatter a victim’s future.
Court Cites Lasting Trauma To Victim
In an order issued on July 21, Justice Sumit Goel dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that courts must exercise heightened caution when handling bail requests in child sexual assault cases. The court noted that safeguarding society’s broader interests and ensuring justice remain paramount when evaluating such offenses.
Justice Goel observed that the victim maintained a consistent narrative before the trial court, lending substantial evidentiary value to his testimony at this stage of proceedings. Addressing defense arguments regarding the absence of medical evidence showing penetrative assault, the court stated that evaluating medical findings and their impact on the prosecution’s case is a matter for detailed consideration during the trial itself.
Given the gravity of the charges, the statutory punishment involved, and the victim’s corroborating testimony, the bench determined that the petitioner did not merit release on bail.
Background Of Allegations And Investigation
The case stems from an incident in February 2025, when the accused allegedly lured the minor boy to an isolated location under false pretenses and sexually assaulted him. According to the prosecution, the accused subsequently threatened the child with severe harm, intimidating him into silence.
The matter was later disclosed to the complainant, prompting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). Following an investigation that included a medical examination of the child and official statements recorded before competent authorities, law enforcement authorities arrested the accused on February 16, 2025.
Arguments Presented By Defense And State
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Inder Preet Singh argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged crime. He contended that the prosecution’s version was questionable because medical reports did not indicate penetrative assault. Defense counsel also highlighted that the accused had been in custody since February 16, 2025, and that 14 of the 25 prosecution witnesses—including the victim and the complainant—had already testified.
Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Adhiraj Singh Thind maintained that the charges were exceedingly grave and that the accused was explicitly named in the FIR. He pointed out that the accused’s role remained consistent throughout the investigation and emphasized that the victim had fully supported the prosecution’s case during trial testimony.
