Bombay High Court photo file. | Photo Credit: Hind
In a significant decision of Bombay High Court, he refused to grant a deposit of a school bus driver who was arrested for charging the sexual assault of a smaller student in 2023. The offense was “very serious, serious and abominable”, the High Court said in his order on March 20.
Judge Madhav J. Jamdar noted that an eight -year -old girl was exposed to a sexual assault, allegedly a school bus driver, whose duty was to safely transport students from school to their homes. Instead, he is accused of stopping the school bus, taking the victim to a nearby place and sexually attacked the child. Prima facie, this clearly shows his involvement in “very serious, grave and abominable crime,” noted the court.
The incident was seen by a person who then protected the child from another attack by the accused. “On the touch stone of the parameters of the deposit, specifically the nature and defect of the circumstances in which the offense and position and position of the accused were committed with reference to the victim and witnesses, is not determined for bail for merit,” the court said.
Worsened sexual assault
According to Section 354-A and 354-B of the Indian Criminal Code and Section 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act, the indictment is filed in this case.
“Given that the victim is a child of eight years, sexual assault deteriorates sexual assault from the point of view of section 9 (m) of the Pocso Act and the same is punished under Section 10 of the Act, although it is section 7, and this is also in sections and 10) and 10, 9 (M.
A third of the maximum sentence completed
The defendant was looking for bail and quoted the fact that he was in prison since March 2023 and finished a third of the maximum punishment that he could be imposed if he was convicted.
Advocate Tapan Thatte, Appearing for the Accused, Said, ”The Applicant (Accused) Has Completed Two Years Impism … in the Case of the First-Time Offender, Once He Completes One-Third FIRST-TIME OFFERS FIRST PROVISO to SECTION 479 (1) of BNSS and in That CASE The Court Has No Jurisdiction
Assistant prosecutor Anuja Gotad claimed that the second determination of subsection (1) of section 479 BNSS clearly stipulates that, after hearing the criminal prosecution and the reasons recorded in writing, he ordered the continuing detention of the accused for a longer half of the maximum period of prison.
The judge noted: “Although the applicant is the first perpetrator, for the above reasons he is not entitled to be released on bail. The application for bail is rejected. Because the victim is a girl’s child eight years old, he is asked to end the court proceedings.”
Published – 1 April 2025 23:26
