HC grants bail to man for coercing minor to record compromising video of mother

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to a Navi Mumbai resident facing serious allegations in a First Information Report (FIR) filed on May 14, 2024, at Uran police station. The accused, Saroj, is charged with raping and sexually abusing a woman and forcing her minor son to record a compromising video of the act, leading to multiple charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Saroj had been granted regular bail on May 10, 2024, in relation to an earlier FIR. His counsel asserted that he had complied with all conditions imposed by the Sessions Court in the previous bail order. The new FIR arose from a statement by an Assistant Police Inspector (API), who uncovered evidence during the investigation of the earlier case.
The API alleged that Saroj facilitated the recording of a video involving the minor victim while he and the child’s mother were in a compromising position. These actions are said to violate Sections 11(i), 11(v), and 11(vi) of the POCSO Act, which pertain to sexual assault and exploitation of minors.
Saroj’s defence, advocate Priyanka S. Thakur, argued that even if the allegations were taken at face value, both he and the victim’s mother would be implicated in the alleged video recording. Moreover, Saroj had surrendered his mobile phone to the investigating officer, suggesting that his custody was unnecessary for further investigation.
During the proceedings, the Court had previously instructed the additional public prosecutor, RM Pethe, to present the minor victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This statement, submitted on October 4, revealed that the minor victim alleged Saroj had provided the mobile phone to record the video, indicating that the recording was made at Saroj’s behest.
Justice Pitale’s observations in the case were pivotal. He underscored the principle of presumption of innocence, stating, “The registration of an FIR does not equate to guilt, and the accused must be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves without unnecessary detention.”
The Judge also emphasised that the investigation could proceed without Saroj’s physical custody, reinforcing the need to respect individual rights while addressing serious allegations. “Saroj’s prior cooperation with the investigation and the surrender of his mobile phone diminish the need for custodial interrogation,” Justice Pitale noted.
Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, requiring Saroj to furnish a personal recognisance bond of ₹25,000, along with one or two sureties of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court..