Repeat POCSO Offender: Court Flags Bail Abuse in Valapattanam Case

Background of the Case

Rafi, the accused, had previously been booked under the POCSO Act in a case registered by the Valapattanam police. He was granted bail in that earlier matter.A madrasa teacher from Kannur has been sentenced to 187 years in prison for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Taliparamba POCSO court pronounced the verdict, convicting Muhammed Rafi, a native of Alakode. The court also imposed a fine of ₹9 lakh.

According to police, the assaults took place between 2020 and 2021. The accused allegedly gained the trust of the girl by showing her a ring and then committed the offence. At the time, he was residing near Pappinisseri, though his permanent residence is near Udayagiri in Alakode. The case falls under the jurisdiction of the Pazhayangadi police station.

The court took into account that Rafi had previously been involved in another case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. That case was registered with the Valapattanam police. After securing bail in the earlier case, he reportedly committed the crime once again.

Court’s Observation

In its order, the court expressed serious concern over the repetitive nature of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, Rafi. It noted that despite being granted bail in an earlier case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act by the Valapattanam police, Rafi appeared to have reoffended, once again targeting a minor. The court observed that such conduct demonstrated a disturbing pattern and indicated that the accused had shown no signs of remorse or intent to reform.

The judicial order emphasized that the grant of bail is a discretionary relief premised on the expectation of lawful conduct, and its misuse erodes public faith in the justice delivery system. Highlighting the vulnerability of child victims and the need to uphold the objectives of the POCSO Act, the court underscored that individual liberty cannot override the safety and welfare of society, especially when the accused has previously benefitted from judicial leniency and yet repeated the same crime. The court, therefore, took a strict view, signalling a zero-tolerance approach to recidivism in sexual offence cases involving children.