Janardan Binjola (Male, aged about 57 years) v. State of Uttarakhand

The FIR was lodged by one Reena, mother of the victim, alleging that when she inquired from her daughter about certain incidents at the hostel where the daughter had previously resided, the daughter revealed that the applicant, whom she addressed as "Binjola Papa," used to force her to sleep alone with him in his room and would have physical relations with her. The daughter further alleged that when she disclosed these incidents to one Oparna Aunty, the latter forcefully sent her to sleep with the applicant. Out of fear, the victim never disclosed these incidents to her mother but had insisted on returning home from the hostel. The State contends that the victim was 1 sexually assaulted multiple times by the applicant, who is the founder of Jagat Jeevan Jyoti Peeth, Dehradun.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Prince Chauhan has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is no documentary or forensic evidence on record to prove that the applicant sexually assaulted the victim. The counsel has placed reliance on the statement of PW-3 (the doctor) recorded during trial, wherein the doctor allegedly stated in cross-examination that there was no mention in the medical report that the victim was sexually assaulted and that there were no injury marks on the victim's body or private parts. It is further submitted that the investigation officer (PW-5) admitted in cross-examination that no document was included with the charge sheet or case diary showing that the victim was residing in the hostel run by the applicant. Emphasis has been placed on the fact that neither the victim nor her mother complained to the police from 2019 to July 22, 2021, regarding the alleged sexual assault. The counsel has also highlighted that the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court in a similar case vide order dated May 17, 2024, and has no previous criminal history. It is contended that the applicant is ready to furnish adequate security and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence or misusing the liberty if released on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned D.A.G. for the State, Ms. Manisha Rana Singh has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out meticulously, during which statements of the complainant and the victim were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The victim's statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim was medically examined, and as per the supplementary medical report, findings suggest that she had been sexually assaulted, probably multiple times. To ascertain the age of the victim, her date of birth certificate was obtained, which confirmed that she was born on August 2, 2007, establishing her minority at the time of the alleged incidents. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial is currently in progress, with six prosecution witnesses having been examined thus far. It is further contended that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would certainly misuse the liberty. The State counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that apart from the present case, another case (Case Crime No. 283/2021) under similar provisions is pending against the applicant.

6. The record reveals that the bail application of the accused- applicant was previously rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTSC (POCSO), Dehradun, vide order dated June 29, 2024. The lower court, after detailed consideration of the evidence on record, observed that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief, stating that "Papa ji" (referring to the applicant) used to call her to sleep in his room under various pretexts and would sexually assault her. The medical examiner had opined that based on the medical examination, and the hymen was not found. Also that there were multiple instances of sexual assault. Considering that the victim was young and unmarried, sexual assault could not be ruled out.

7. After careful consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the material on record, I find that the allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature. The victim, who was admittedly a minor at the time of the alleged incidents (born on August 2, 2007), has made specific allegations against the applicant in her statements recorded during investigation and in her testimony before the trial court. The supplementary medical report corroborates her allegations to the extent that it indicates probable sexual assault multiple times. The fact that the victim was living in a hostel run by the applicant, where she was in a relationship of trust and dependency. aggravates the seriousness of the allegations.

8. The applicant's contention that there is no documentary evidence to prove the sexual assault must be viewed in light of the nature of the offense itself. Sexual offenses, particularly those committed against minors, are often not supported by documentary evidence, and the testimony of the victim assumes paramount importance. The Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has held that the testimony of a victim in sexual offenses, if found reliable, can be the basis for conviction without the need for corroboration. While the applicant has highlighted certain aspects of the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to support his case, these are matters that would be considered during trial and cannot be determinative at the stage of bail.

9. The argument regarding the delay in lodging the FIR must also be viewed in the context of the victim being a minor who was allegedly under the influence and control of the applicant. The victim has stated that she was scared and therefore did not disclose the incidents to her mother immediately. Moreover, the power dynamics between the applicant, who was in a position of authority, and the victim, who was dependent on him, could reasonably explain the delay in reporting.

10. The fact that the applicant has been granted bail in another case (Case Crime No. 283/2021) by this Court cannot be a determinative factor in the present case, as each case must be considered on its own merits. The nature of allegations, the evidence collected, and the stage of trial may differ in each case.

11. Furthermore, the trial is currently at a crucial stage with six prosecution witnesses having already been examined. Releasing the applicant on bail at this juncture may impact the fair progress of the trial, particularly considering the minority of the victim and the position of influence the applicant held over her. The possibility of the applicant intimidating the victim or other witnesses cannot be ruled out.

12. The provisions of the POCSO Act were enacted with the specific intent to protect children from sexual offenses. Section 29 of the Act creates a presumption as to the commission of an offense when a person is prosecuted for committing an offense under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Act. The burden is on the accused to rebut this presumption. In the present case, the applicant has been charged under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, which deal with aggravated penetrative sexual assault, carrying a severe punishment. The gravity of these charges, coupled with the presumption under Section 29 of the Act, weighs heavily against the grant of bail at this stage.

13. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for bail at this stage. Order For the reasons stated above, the bail application filed by the applicant, Janardan Binjola, is hereby rejected. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) Dated:16.04.2025 NR