Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Priest Regarding Sexual Assaulting 11-Year-Old Boy Near Temple

A temple priest (pujari) who was accused of engaging in unnatural sexual activity with a minor boy was recently denied bail by the Allahabad High Court. The court’s decision was based on the charges filed against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The Court, presided over by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, expressed deep concern over the alleged offence and found no apparent justification to grant bail to the accused pujari.

The Court stated, “From the perusal of the statement of the victim, who is a minor aged about 12 years, it is clear that the applicant has committed offence which has shaken the conscious of this Court. There is no occasion why the victim, who is minor, would give such type of statement against the applicant. Looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant, prima facie, no case for bail is made out, at this stage (sic),” .

As per the prosecution’s account, the victim, who was an orphan under the care of his uncle, was approximately 11 years old at the time of the incident.

The boy disappeared at a fair in February of this year. After looking for him, his uncle ultimately discovered the boy sobbing. The boy informed his uncle that a priest had improper intercourse with him near a temple.

After the priest was the target of a first information report (FIR), he was taken into custody.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC)’s Section 377, which punishes non-consensual anal sex, and the POCSO Act’s penetrative sexual assault were among the charges included in the FIR.

Next, the priest approached the High Court to request bail in this particular instance.
The priest’s attorney contended before the court that he had been wrongly accused because of animosity among the the village. A fake police report was filed because the informant, the child’s uncle, wanted the accused to be taken out of the temple, according to information provided to the court.

Additionally, it was contended that the injury report failed to establish any violation of Section 377 of the IPC, as no visible external injuries were discovered on the young boy during the course of the investigation.

The State vehemently opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused man’s actions had deeply disturbed the public.
After carefully considering the facts of the case, the Court decided to deny the bail plea.

Arun Kumar, an advocate, represented the accused priest.