‘No sexual intent’: Bombay HC grants bail to man accused of stripping 3 teenagers, inserting fingers in anus

The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a man accused of allegedly stripping three teenagers, inserting fingers in the anus, and filming the whole incident.

Justice Kilor was hearing the bail plea of accused Kapil Suresh Taak. Taak was booked under Sections 377 (unnatural offence), 363, 343, 289, 323, 324, 504, 506, 143, 145, 149 of the IPC r/w Sections 4 (penetrative sexual assault) and 8 (sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

As per a LiveLaw report, the court said that it found no prima facie evidence of sexual intent. The case is of physical and mental torture meted out to the minor victims in the background that applicant and other co-accused have considered them as thieves.

A complaint was lodged by the mother of one of the victims on April 30, 2021. A vendor in the Pimpri vegetable market had noticed a video showing her son and two other minors being assaulted and abused after removing their clothes.

A co-accused, Sachin, allegedly brought Zandu Balm to apply to the anus of the boys. Other allegations against the accused include pulling of their private parts and insertion of fingers into their anus. Kapil Taak also allegedly filmed the incident and threatened the victims against disclosing it.

An earlier bail application by Kapil Taak was rejected by another bench of the HC on March 3, 2022.

In the current application, advocate Sana Raees Khan for the applicant argued that the provisions of the POCSO Act is not applicable as there was no sexual intent involved. She contended that the chargesheet had been filed, and further custody was unnecessary, highlighting that the applicant had been in jail for over three years since May 1, 2021.

APP Meera Shinde for the State and advocate Mehgna for the victim opposed the bail.

Justice Kilor, after reviewing the FIR and the investigation material, found no prima facie evidence of sexual intent. Given that the charge sheet had been filed and the applicant had been in custody for over three years, the court concluded that further detention was unnecessary.