The Bombay High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to a Navi Mumbai resident who is the subject of serious allegations in a First Information Report (FIR) submitted to the Uran police station on May 14, 2024. Saroj faces many charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Incident, 2012 (POCSO Act) for allegedly forcing a woman’s minor son to make a compromising video of the incident while raping and sexually assaulting her.
On May 10, 2024, Saroj was given regular bail in connection with a previous FIR. His attorney asserted that he had complied with all requirements outlined by the Sessions Court in the earlier bail decision. An Assistant Police Inspector (API) made a statement during the investigation of the previous case, which led to the filing of a new FIR.
According to the API, Saroj put himself and the child’s mother in a precarious situation when he allowed the juvenile victim to be included in a film. These acts allegedly violate Sections 11(i), 11(v), and 11(vi) of the POCSO Act, which deals with sexual assault and child exploitation.
Advocate Priyanka S. Thakur, who was representing Saroj, contended that even if the accusations were accepted at face value, he and the victim’s mother would be held accountable for the purported video recording. Saroj also gave the investigating officer his cell phone, indicating that his custody was not required to do additional research.
The minor victim’s statement, which was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was to be presented by RM Pethe, the extra public prosecutor, as directed by the Court throughout the proceedings. The child victim claimed in this statement, filed on October 4, that Saroj had given the cell phone used to record the video, suggesting that Saroj had ordered the recording.
In this case, Justice Pitale’s observations were crucial. “The registration of a FIR does not equate to guilt, and the accused must be allowed to defend themselves without unnecessary detention,” he said, underscoring the presumption of innocence.
In addition, the judge stressed that Saroj’s physical custody was not necessary for the investigation to continue, underscoring the importance of upholding individual rights when dealing with grave accusations. “Saroj’s prior cooperation with the investigation and the surrender of his mobile phone diminish the need for custodial interrogation,” said Justice Pitale.
As a result, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to Saroj satisfying the trial court with the provision of a ₹25,000 personal recognisance bond and one or more sureties in the same amount.
