Ahmedabad: A city sessions court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to a 17-year-old who is facing allegations of sexually harassing his distant cousin. The cousin, a UK resident, had come to India four years ago and revealed the alleged offence two years ago.According to public prosecutor Sudhir Brahmbhatt, after the teen’s revelation of the alleged molestation during counselling sessions, her mother filed a complaint with UK police but was given an option “to report to the police in India whilst there”. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged against the juvenile delinquent with Mahila Police Station (East), Ahmedabad on Aug 14 by the victim’s mother under Sections 354 and 354a of IPC, and 7 and 8 of the Pocso Act.The accused, too, was 13 years of age at the time of the alleged harassment in July-Aug 2022, when the victim along with her parents was on an India trip. It was in May 2024 that the girl first revealed the alleged incident before her mother and attending doctors during counselling sessions.Fearing an arrest, the boy sought anticipatory bail and claimed innocence and alleged false implication. He submitted that he is studying on a pharmacy course and if arrested, his career would be ruined and he would lose all social standing.The girl’s mother opposed the plea, terming it a heinous crime. She submitted that due to the traumatic incident in 2022, when her daughter was barely 13 years of age, she was in extreme shock and confusion, and it took her two years and counselling to disclose the incident. She was placed under high-risk child suicide watch by the UK medical authorities and Adolescent Mental Health Services, which instituted a formal, statutory child in need plan.Opposing the bail, the complainant mother also contended that the juvenile accused’s family is influential and can exert undue pressure on the victim and key witnesses.Additional sessions judge J I Patel perused the material, including the documents from UK authorities, and said, “After considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and nature of an offence, at this juncture, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to use the discretionary power of this court in favour of the present applicant to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.”
