The court hearing a parole request said the convict can't go near the girl's village (Representational)
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court ordered that an accused charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 cannot serve parole in the same city or village where the survivor lives.
In its decision, a division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni said that in cases where the accused and the survivor live in the same city or village, the accused will have to serve parole elsewhere.
The court said that the convict and the survivor must not come face-to-face as it would remind the survivor of the ordeal he or she is trying to forget.
Sahi Ram, sentenced to jail for raping a three-year-old girl and serving his sentence in Ajmer central jail, had moved the High Court challenging the rejection of his first parole application by the District Level Parole Committee, Nagaur.
His counsel argued that the committee committed an error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application for first parole and submitted that the ground taken for rejection was not relevant.
Additional Advocate General (AAG) Anil Joshi, while objecting to the prayer, cited the seriousness of the crime. He argued that granting parole would bring the accused face-to-face with the survivor, who lives adjacent to the convict petitioner.
"It will have adverse social and psychological effects on the victim, as the accused is the neighbour of the victim," he argued.
The court ordered the release of Sahi Ram on his first parole for 20 days on a private bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties of Rs 5,000 each and imposed a condition that he will not go to the survivor's village, even if he has a home or family there.
The convict's counsel gave an assurance to the court that he would not go to the girl's village. The High Court ruled that the accused would serve parole outside the girl's village.