It is no surprise that women’s safety in India is a practical joke. And in many cases, even if the criminals are caught, they are given bail or leeway citing various reasons which highlight their overall apathetic attitude towards the victim in these situations. One example of this was seen in the Bilkis Bano case recently. Another one is the case of a boy getting bail after being involved in the gang rape of a minor.
The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a boy charged with the gang rape of a seven-year-old girl in 2020, holding that a child in conflict with the law cannot be denied the right to be reunited with his family if the expert’s report from the observational home states that he is not a danger to society. The petitioner, who was a minor when the incident happened, just turned 18 years old. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was cited by the court in order to make the observation that the applicant should profit from being released on bail despite having had his pleas rejected three times by the Juvenile Justice Board and a special court.
Last month, the bench made the following observations that the rapist is now an adult and his delayed education cannot be terminated further. It was further said that the boy deserves to be reunited and restored with his family and that it is in his best interest to develop himself to full potential. Justice Bharati H. Dangre was considering the bail request made by attorney Maharukh Adenwalla, asking for the applicant’s release on bail in accordance with the 2015 statute. The petitioner was detained in December 2020, and because he was a minor, he had sent the bail appeal through his mother.
Also Read: Rape Survivor Forced To Take Virginity Test After Marriage, Asked To Pay 10 Lakhs For Purification. We Need Stricter Laws Against Such Tests!
According to the prosecution, the girl was gang-raped by five adults as well as the applicant, and the crime came to light after the child told her parents about it. According to the complaint, the accused took the victim to a remote location, groped her private areas, and then threatened to keep the occurrence a secret. The accused reportedly raped her a few days later. The applicant was 16 years and five months old and came from a lower middle-class socioeconomic background. The applicant claimed that despite passing Class 10 he was unable to continue his education because of his mother’s illness, his family’s financial struggles, and eventually his imprisonment in an observation home.
The applicant was 16 years and five months old and came from a lower middle-class socioeconomic background, according to the applicant’s attorney, who claimed that the alleged offence was committed on that date in 2020. The applicant claimed that despite passing Class 10 he was unable to continue his education because of his mother’s illness, his family’s financial struggles, and eventually his imprisonment in an observation home.
The probation officer and child guidance clinic’s January 2021 reports on the applicant’s current psychological and physical status stated that he is not a danger to society and suggested giving the applicant the chance to become a “better person.” According to Adenwalla, the applicant was wrongly implicated in the case due to a statement made by his paternal uncle, with whom his family is at odds, and the victim had failed to properly identify the applicant. He also claimed that the applicant’s continued detention in the observational home was unnecessary.
Also Read: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Trolled On Internet For Her Looks During The ‘PS-1’ Trailer Launch. Stop, Her Beauty Doesn’t Need Your Validation!
The Mumbai Police’s attorney, A. A. Takalkar, opposed the applicant’s request for bail and claimed that if granted, he or she would be a danger to the victim, who lives nearby. The application was also rejected by lawyer Saveena Bedi, who was representing the girl’s father. Justice Dangre read the submissions and said that the accusations faced by the applicant are unquestionably serious, but he must also derive the benefit of being a “child,” despite the fact that he is being tried as an adult, and the benefit of Section 12 (bail of juvenile) of the 2015 Act cannot be denied to him.
The bench ruled that the applicant had responded favourably to rehabilitation measures made while he was in the observation house, in accordance with the Act of 2015. He is entitled to his release on bail under Section 12 of the 2015 Act since he has invoked the principle of repatriation and restoration to the same socioeconomic and cultural status that he was in before the alleged offence, and there is no evidence to show why this should be rejected.