The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that even in serious offences under the POCSO Act, bail may be reconsidered if the accused demonstrates genuine willingness to cooperate with trial proceedings, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure accountability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sachin Narsu Chaughule, is accused in Crime No. 257 of 2022, registered at Kaij Police Station, District Beed, for offences under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The alleged victim is an eight-year-old girl.
Key Facts
- The applicant was initially granted bail by the Special Court on 04.01.2023 under specified conditions.
- He subsequently absconded and failed to appear before the court for multiple trial dates.
- Due to his persistent non-cooperation, a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against him on 05.02.2026.
- He was produced before the court on 25.03.2026 after his arrest.
- He filed Application Exh.14 seeking bail, claiming necessity to travel for livelihood purposes.
- The Special Court rejected his bail application on 25.03.2026.
Procedural History
- 04.01.2023: Applicant granted bail by Special Court.
- 05.02.2026: Non-Bailable Warrant issued due to persistent absence.
- 25.03.2026: Applicant produced before court; bail application rejected.
- 08.05.2026: Bail application filed before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant: Counsel submitted that the applicant is now willing to comply fully with trial proceedings and has offered to furnish a written undertaking to attend all court dates and cooperate for expeditious disposal. He emphasized that his absence was not malicious but due to livelihood exigencies.
For the Respondent (State): The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the applicant’s conduct demonstrated deliberate non-cooperation, undermining judicial process. Given the gravity of the offence involving a minor victim, bail should not be reconsidered. The State urged expeditious trial instead.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail in Crime No. 257 of 2022, with conditions ensuring his presence and cooperation in trial proceedings.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused who has absconded and triggered a Non-Bailable Warrant in a POCSO case be granted bail again, and under what conditions?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in heinous offences, provided the accused demonstrates genuine remorse and willingness to comply. He cited State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to argue that courts must balance liberty with public interest. The applicant’s solemn undertaking to attend all trial dates and inform authorities before relocating was presented as sufficient safeguard.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that repeated absconding reflects a pattern of disrespect for judicial process and increases risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. It emphasized that POCSO cases demand heightened caution, and granting bail after breach of prior conditions sets a dangerous precedent. The State argued that trial should be expedited without releasing the accused.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations under the POCSO Act, particularly the age of the victim. However, it noted that the applicant had previously been granted bail and was not a flight risk prior to his absence. The Court emphasized that the applicant’s current willingness to furnish a binding undertaking, coupled with the absence of any allegation of witness tampering or evidence destruction, warranted a second chance.
"Considering the nature of allegations and readiness to furnish the undertaking, I propose to grant one chance to the applicant."
The Court held that while absconding is a serious breach, it does not ipso facto disqualify an accused from future bail if there is a demonstrable change in conduct. The Court rejected the notion that bail should be categorically denied in POCSO cases after non-cooperation, affirming that each case must be decided on its own facts.
The Court further observed that the proposed conditions - mandatory attendance, prior intimation of relocation, and strict consequences for default - were sufficient to mitigate risks to the trial process. The Court stressed that any future default would result in immediate cancellation of bail, without further hearing.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of Sachin Narsu Chaughule on bail in Crime No. 257 of 2022, subject to the following conditions: (i) execution of a fresh bond and surety; (ii) submission of a written undertaking to attend every trial date punctually and cooperate for expeditious disposal; (iii) furnishing of contact numbers to the Investigating Officer and prior intimation before relocating from place of residence; and (iv) immediate cancellation of bail upon any further default. The bail is granted on the same conditions as the earlier order, with these additional safeguards.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Permanently Forfeited After Absconding
- Practitioners may argue that a single breach of bail conditions does not permanently extinguish the right to bail if the accused demonstrates sincere compliance going forward.
- Courts may grant a "second chance" in non-violent or non-terror-related cases, provided conditions are tightened.
- The burden shifts to the accused to prove changed conduct, not to the State to prove continued risk.
POCSO Cases Require Tailored, Not Automatic, Denial of Bail
- The judgment clarifies that POCSO cases do not automatically warrant denial of bail after absconding.
- Courts must assess whether the accused’s conduct poses a real threat to the trial’s integrity, not merely rely on the nature of the offence.
- Conditions such as prior intimation of movement and direct reporting to the Investigating Officer are now viable tools to ensure accountability.
Strict Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Any future default will result in immediate cancellation of bail, without notice or hearing.
- Lawyers must advise clients that even minor lapses (e.g., failing to inform the IO of travel) will trigger bail cancellation.
- Undertakings must be in writing, signed, and filed with the court - oral assurances are insufficient.
