Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently denied bail to a man (Fufa) booked for sexually exploiting two minor girls, observing that in many cases, the abusers are known to the victims and may even be living in the same house.

“It is thus clear that most commonly abusers are persons who are well known to the child and may be living in the house. It is needless to say anything more on this aspect. It is also stated as to how the children are more easily threatened and less likely to speak out about the abuse,” the order reads.  

A single-judge bench of the high court, presided over by Justice PK Chavan, was hearing a bail application filed by a 'Fufa' (paternal uncle) of the victims who was accused of sexually exploiting and betraying the trust of two minors aged 9 and 13 years old.

It was alleged that the accused betrayed their trust by administering some stupefying substance, showing them pornographic videos, and snapping nude videos of the victims. Furthermore, he also extended threats of making the same viral if the victims disclosed his actions.

The family of the accused and the victim's families used to visit each other's houses frequently. One of the victims informed her parents that the accused used to molest her, snap videos and photographs, and show pornographic videos on his mobile phone.

It was also alleged that the accused touched the private parts of the victim. Whenever the victim experienced bleeding or had a stomachache after sexual exploitation by the applicant, he would administer some medicines and tablets. Furthermore, the accused sent a link to a pornographic website to the victim where her nude pictures were uploaded.

The victim's mother informed her husband about the incident, after which the husband warned the accused not to repeat such acts.

Despite this warning, the accused hacked the mobile phones of the complainant and sent threatening messages to the victim, which were also forwarded to her school groups.

Subsequently, the parents filed an FIR and the accused came to be booked under sections 376 (2) (f), (i), (n), 500, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and under sections 4,6,8 and 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and also under Sections 43 (a) and 67-A of The Information Technology Act, 2000.

The accused seeking bail contended that his wife was being coerced by her brothers to provide a no-objection certificate, relinquishing her share in their father's property in favour of her brothers.

The accused strongly objected to this and persuaded his wife not to sign any such declaration or give a no-objection statement relinquishing her rights to her brothers.

As a result of the wife's refusal to sign such a declaration, relations soured, and bitterness arose between the two families. This bitterness allegedly led to the filing of a false report against the applicant.

The complainant's counsel contended that the applicant, whom the victims treated like their father, had molested them by taking advantage of the trust they had in him.

He also argued that, even though there might not be prima facie evidence of penetrative sexual assault, the incidents could still result in causing trauma and shock to the victims, who are still 13 and 15 years of age.

The high court, in its order denying bail, noted that because the applicant was a close relative of the victim and the family, his release would definitely have an adverse impact on the minds of the victims, who have already been traumatized.

Mr. Nishad Nevgi a/w Mr. Gauraj Shah, Samaa Shah, Junaid Badgujar i/b S.N. Juris, for Applicant.

Mr. A.A. Palkar, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1 – State.

Mr. Manish Singh a/w Ms. Archana Tiwari, for Complainant.

Case title: Unnikrishnan Rajeevkumar Bhaskaran Alias Rajiv Unnikrishnan vs State of Maharashtra & Anr