HC grants bail to 96% disabled man arrested for raping minor

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday granted bail to an Andheri resident booked for raping a minor girl after noticing that the man suffered from spinal dysraphism with 96% disability and the prosecution case that he overpowered the girl and sexually assaulted her appeared “farfetched”.
“The overall physical condition of the applicant made out by the documents filed along with the application and the original disability certificate show that a prima facie case is made out by the applicant to claim that the allegation of the applicant having physically overpowered the victim and sexually abused her, appear to be farfetched,” said the single judge bench of justice Sarang Kotwal while granting bail to the Andheri resident.
ALSO READ- EY employee death: Rahul Gandhi speaks with Anna’s parents, says ‘I promised…’
“No purpose would be served in keeping such a 96% disabled individual in judicial custody, during the pendency of the trial,” said the bench, and ordered the accused to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of ₹15,000 and one or two sureties in the same amount.
ALSO READ- Modi gets a warm welcome in US, holds talks with Biden
The handicapped man was arrested on October 16, 2023, soon after the Andheri police registered an offence against him under Sections 376(2), 376(2)(n), 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The FIR was registered following a complaint lodged by the mother of the minor girl.
It was alleged that he had overpowered the teenager and sexually assaulted her. He, however, submitted his disability certificate, showing that he suffered from spinal dysraphism with 96% disability and in such a physical condition, it was impossible for him to have overpowered the victim to abuse her sexually.
ALSO READ- ‘Every day was a nightmare’: Bengal man returns home from Russia-Ukraine war
Besides, his lawyer also pointed out that the medical examination of the minor girl clearly revealed that she was not subjected to penetrative sexual assault, as contemplated under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The high court accepted this contention, observing that the medical opinion specifically recorded that there was no evidence of any penetration.