Holding that sexual violence against a minor is not only a grave offence but also shatters the child’s future, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that proceedings involving such offences must be handled with “due care and precaution”, particularly while considering applications for bail.Refusing regular bail to an accused booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Justice Sumeet Goel further held that the victim’s testimony constitutes substantive evidence carrying substantial evidentiary value at the bail stage, and that the absence of medical evidence indicating penetrative assault could not be made the sole basis for grant of bail.Before examining the merits of the bail plea, the court referred to the approach required in cases involving sexual offences against children.“This Court likes to point out that while considering matters involving sexual offences, a Court has to be mindful that the incidents of sexual violence against the minor child in a society is not only grave but the future of the victim has been lowered and shattered into pieces.”Justice Goel further observed: “Once a victim being a minor child has been hurt physically, emotionally and mentally at a tender age, the same is bound to have adverse effects on the overall growth and development of the said human being.”Referring to the need for caution while dealing with such cases, Justice Goel added it was, thus, in the interest of justice and “of course the overall interest of the society at large that proceedings are handled with due care and precaution, especially when the Court is dealing with an application for releasing the accused on bail.”Turning to the facts of the case, Justice Goel noted that an FIR in the matter was registered on February 16 last year at a police station in Banur in Patiala district. It was alleged that the petitioner had enticed the victim to accompany him to a secluded place on a false pretext and thereafter committed sexual assault upon him.The Bench asserted indubitably serious allegations had been levelled against the petitioner relating to the commission of sexual assault upon a minor child.Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case because it did not reflect penetrative assault, the court held: “The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case inasmuch as the same does not reflect penetrative assault does not persuade this Court as the same cannot be made the sole basis for the grant of bail at this stage.”Justice Goel found it significant that the victim had already deposed before the trial court in support of the prosecution. “A significant factor which weighs with this Court is that the victim has already been examined before the trial Court and has supported the case of the prosecution.”The court further noted that the victim had specifically attributed the commission of the offence to the petitioner and remained consistent regarding the manner of occurrence. “The testimony of the victim constitutes substantive evidence and carries substantial evidentiary value at this stage,” the Bench held.The High Court also observed that the nature of the allegations, the age of the victim, the specific role attributed to the petitioner and the testimony of the victim supporting the prosecution case prima facie indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence, adding that the allegations related to a sexual offence against a child which, if proven, carried severe punishment under law.Holding that the allegations against the petitioner were grave and that the victim’s statement further corroborated the prosecution case at this stage, the court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.