Mumbai: Special POCSO Court Refuses To Discharge Co-Accused In SoBo School Sexual Assault Case

A Mumbai special POCSO court refused to discharge Shomita Banerjee, accused of coaxing a minor boy into a sexual relationship with former teacher Bipasha Kumar. The court held that the chargesheet discloses sufficient material and that under POCSO presumptions, claims of false implication or lack of evidence must be tested during trial, not at the discharge stage.

Add FPJ As a
Trusted Source
Charul Shah Joshi Updated: Saturday, February 14, 2026, 11:55 AM IST
Mumbai: Special POCSO Court Refuses To Discharge Co-Accused In SoBo School Sexual Assault Case | Representational Image

Mumbai: Special POCSO Court Refuses To Discharge Co-Accused In SoBo School Sexual Assault Case | Representational Image

Mumbai: The special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has refused to discharge Shomita Banerjee, the friend of former teacher of a SoBo school, Bipasha Kumar, who was booked on the complaint of a minor boy for repeated sexual assault. The court, while rejecting her plea, said there is enough evidence against her.

The boy, a student from the same school, alleged that Kumar forced him into a relationship and allegedly sexually exploited him for over a year. Banerjee was accused of allegedly coaxing the minor into a sexual relationship with the teacher. While seeking discharge, Banerjee had claimed she was falsely implicated in the case. On perusal of the chargesheet, it was found that the prosecution failed to establish any prima facie case against her.

In her defence she claimed that during the period of the alleged crime, she was not present in Mumbai, except between March 29, 2024 and April 1, 2025. She never knew the victim, nor did she ever interact with him, she said. She was unaware of the relationship between the victim and Kumar until the latter’s arrest in connection with this case. The plea was opposed by the prosecution, claiming that the complainants – mother of the victim and victim himself – clearly stated that Banerjee was involved in the crime.

The court, after hearing the arguments, noted, “In offences under the POCSO Act, the legislature has consciously incorporated presumptions to protect child victims. These provisions shift the burden of proof onto the accused once the victim’s statement and supporting material are on record. Therefore, pleas of false implication, absence of corroboration, or improbability of the incident cannot be considered at the discharge stage; such defences are matters for trial.” “Discharge is only permissible when the prosecution’s material, even if accepted in entirety, does not disclose any offence. In our case, the material does disclose involvement,” the court said while refusing the discharge plea.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Published on: Saturday, February 14, 2026, 11:55 AM IST

RECENT STORIES