LI Network
Published on: November 16, 2023 at 11:10 IST
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has recently ruled that the failure to report crimes under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is a bailable offence.
In the case of Sushil Kumar versus the State of Himachal Pradesh, Justice Rakesh Kainthla clarified that Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which penalizes the non-reporting of offences related to child sexual abuse, falls under the category of bailable offences.
Typically, a bailable offence allows the accused to be released on bail as a matter of right, whereas for non-bailable offences, the accused must approach the court for bail, and the court’s discretion determines whether to grant or reject bail based on the circumstances.
Section 21 of the POCSO Act specifies penalties for failing to report child sexual abuse, with potential imprisonment of up to six months or even a year for those in charge of a company or institution.
Justice Kainthla emphasized that the nature of this offence is bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the police can release the accused on bail.
The court made this observation while adjudicating a petition for anticipatory bail in a POCSO case, highlighting that the POCSO Act itself does not define the nature of the offence, necessitating reference to the CrPC. Section 31 of the POCSO Act explicitly states that the CrPC applies to proceedings before a Special Court, including matters related to bail.
Addressing the classification of offences under the CrPC, the court explained that if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, it is considered bailable and non-cognizable. Since Section 21 of the POCSO Act provides for a punishment of up to six months or one year, the court concluded that it qualifies as a bailable offence.
This judgment aligns with similar views expressed by the Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court on the issue.
The petitioner in this case was accused of failing to report a crime that allegedly occurred in a hotel managed by him.
The court found the offence to be bailable, making the anticipatory bail petition unnecessary, as the accused is entitled to release on bail upon furnishing bail bonds even without the petition.
