The Delhi High Court has delivered a firm and uncompromising order refusing bail to a self-styled faith healer accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl under the pretext of removing a “jinn.” The ruling, rendered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, reflects a sharp judicial recognition of how superstition and blind faith can be weaponised to perpetrate grave sexual offences. The case is not merely one of sexual violence, but of calculated exploitation rooted in psychological dominance and social vulnerability.
At the heart of the prosecution’s case lies a disturbing narrative: the minor victim, suffering from an illness, was taken to the accused by her family, who believed that supernatural forces were responsible for her condition. Exploiting this belief, the accused allegedly isolated the child during “treatment sessions” and committed repeated acts of sexual assault. The offences invoked include rape under the Indian Penal Code and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, thereby placing the allegations in the category of the most serious crimes against children.
In refusing bail, the Court placed decisive emphasis on the vulnerability of the victim and the manipulative conduct of the accused. It observed that the accused had taken undue advantage of both the minor’s fragile condition and the unquestioning faith reposed in him by her family. This reasoning is jurisprudentially significant, it elevates the offence beyond physical violation to one compounded by breach of trust and abuse of authority. The Court’s approach reflects an evolved understanding that in such cases, consent is rendered meaningless where power dynamics are inherently coercive.
The order also aligns with the settled principles governing bail in cases under the POCSO framework, where courts adopt a cautious and restrictive approach. The gravity of the offence, the age of the victim, and the possibility of psychological intimidation or influence weigh heavily against the grant of bail. By refusing relief, the Court reaffirmed that personal liberty of the accused cannot override the societal imperative of protecting minors and ensuring a fair trial free from external pressures.
Significantly, the Court’s observations go beyond the individual case and engage with a broader socio-legal concern, the misuse of religious or supernatural claims to facilitate abuse. The phenomenon of “faith healing” operating outside institutional accountability often creates spaces where victims are silenced and offenders shielded by community belief systems. The judiciary, in this instance, has clearly signalled that such informal authority structures will not dilute criminal liability.
From a critical standpoint, the ruling also highlights the limitations of criminal law in addressing offences rooted in superstition. While the law can punish perpetrators, it cannot, by itself, dismantle the socio-cultural conditions that enable such exploitation. The continued reliance on faith healers reflects gaps in public health access, education, and awareness. However, judicial pronouncements of this nature perform an essential normative function, they delegitimise harmful practices and reinforce constitutional values of dignity, bodily autonomy, and protection of children.
Ultimately, the decision of the Delhi High Court stands as a strong doctrinal and moral assertion: crimes masked as spiritual intervention will be treated with the utmost severity. By foregrounding vulnerability, abuse of trust, and systemic exploitation, the Court has contributed to a more robust and context-sensitive jurisprudence under sexual offence laws. The message is unequivocal faith cannot be a shield for criminality, and the law will intervene decisively where belief is used as a tool of abuse.
