No easy stay orders in grave sexual offence cases: HC
Kolkata: Refusing to halt proceedings against an NGO manager accused of repeatedly raping a blind minor over several years, the Calcutta High Court has said that High Courts should ordinarily exercise restraint in granting stays in cases involving grave sexual offences.
The bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De directed that the trial must go forward in regard to this case.
The order recorded that police had filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 376(2)(c) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and Section 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act. The prosecution alleges that the visually impaired girl was subjected to repeated assaults by a person holding authority in the NGO.
The accused had sought a stay of the criminal process, arguing that the complaint was lodged after an unexplained delay of 14 years, that the investigating officer had no jurisdiction, and that some of the offences cited by the prosecution were introduced only after the period of the alleged incidents. A contention was also raised under the Juvenile Justice Act. Justice De rejected these submissions. He said that questions of delay, the competence of the investigating officer and the applicability of specific statutory provisions must be examined by the trial court, not in an interim stay application under Section 482 of the CrPC.
On the Juvenile Justice point, the court noted that the accused was not a juvenile and that an investigation under the POCSO framework was in order.
On the issue of later statutes, the judge added that even before POCSO was enacted, provisions such as the then-existing Section 376(2)(c) of the IPC, which criminalised sexual assault by a person in authority, were available to prosecute such conduct.
The application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that the accused could raise his objections during trial or the pending revisional hearing.
The matter was fixed for further hearing on November 6, 2025. The case diary was returned to the state with a direction to produce it on that date. Parties were told to act on the server copy of the order, and urgent certified copies were permitted on compliance.
