Touching cheeks without sexual intent would not attract the offence
In the shadow of a child's vulnerability, a court in Mumbai drew a fine and contested line between physical contact and criminal intent. The Bombay High Court, weighing the letter of the law against the gravity of the alleged act, granted bail to a man accused of luring an eight-year-old girl into a shop in Thane — finding that the touching of her cheek, absent demonstrable sexual intent, did not meet the legal threshold for assault under the POCSO Act. The ruling, narrow in its stated scope, nonetheless opened a wider question about how the law measures harm to children when intent cannot be easily proven. The trial continues, but the man walks free while it does.
- A young girl was allegedly led into a meat shop by an adult man who then exposed himself and began undressing — an intervention by a suspicious bystander may have been all that stopped further harm.
- Despite the gravity of the alleged conduct, the Bombay High Court found the specific act of touching the child's cheek legally insufficient to establish sexual assault without clear evidence of sexual intent.
- The accused, who claimed false implication by business rivals and pointed to his long residence and clean record, successfully argued for release pending trial after more than a year in Taloja prison.
- The court moved to contain the ruling's reach, explicitly stating its observations were confined to the bail decision and should not be read as a broader legal standard for child abuse cases.
- The case remains active and unresolved — the charges stand, the trial proceeds, and the tension between legal precision and child protection continues to hang over the outcome.
In July 2020, an eight-year-old girl was led into a meat shop in Thane district by Mohammad Ahmed Ulla, a 46-year-old man. Inside, he touched her cheek, opened his shirt, and began to open his pants. A woman who had watched him guide the child inside grew suspicious, entered, and discovered what was unfolding. She reported it. Ulla was arrested and charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.
More than a year later, Justice Sandeep Shinde of the Bombay High Court granted Ulla bail on a narrow but significant point of law: touching a child's cheek, the court reasoned, does not constitute sexual assault unless there is evidence of sexual intent — and the material before the judge did not clearly establish that intent in the act of touching her cheek.
Ulla had maintained his innocence throughout, claiming he had been falsely implicated by business rivals. He cited his long presence in the area and his lack of prior criminal history. The court accepted these as grounds for bail, while carefully noting that its reasoning applied only to the question of pre-trial release — not to the merits of the case itself.
Justice Shinde added an explicit caveat: his observations were not to be treated as a wider legal statement about what constitutes child abuse. The clarification hinted at an awareness of how the ruling might be received. The charges against Ulla remain serious. The trial will proceed. But the line the court drew — between contact and intent, between what happened and what can be proven — now stands as the reason a man accused of harming a child is free while that question is still being answered.
In July 2020, a girl eight years old was taken into a meat shop in Thane district by a man named Mohammad Ahmed Ulla, who was 46. He touched her cheek, opened his shirt, and began to open his pants. A woman who had noticed him leading the child into the shop grew suspicious, went to investigate, and found what was happening. She reported it. Police arrested Ulla and charged him under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
More than a year later, in August 2021, Justice Sandeep Shinde of the Bombay High Court granted Ulla bail. The reasoning was narrow but consequential: touching a child's cheek, the judge wrote, does not by itself constitute sexual assault under the law unless there is evidence of sexual intent. Looking at the material before him, the judge found no clear indication that the cheek-touching was done with such intent.
Ulla had argued in his bail petition that he was innocent, that he had been falsely implicated by business rivals. He said he had no criminal history and had been running the meat shop and living in the area for a long time. The court accepted his argument for bail, though it was careful to note that this decision was about whether he should be released pending trial—not about the merits of the case itself.
At the time of the bail order, Ulla was being held at Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai. The charges against him remained serious and multiple. But the high court's reasoning—that the physical contact alone, without proven sexual intent, did not meet the legal threshold for sexual assault—became the basis for his release.
Justice Shinde added an important caveat to his order: the observations he had made should be understood as applying only to this bail decision and should not be taken as guidance for how other cases would be tried. The clarification suggested awareness that his reasoning might be controversial or misunderstood as a broader statement about what constitutes abuse of a child. The case itself remained open. The trial would proceed. But for now, the accused was free.
Notable Quotes
Touching the cheeks without a sexual intent would not attract the offence of sexual assault, as defined under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act— Justice Sandeep Shinde, Bombay High Court
The observations made should be construed as the opinion only for bail in this matter and shall not in any way influence the trials in other matters— Justice Sandeep Shinde, in clarification
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
How does a court distinguish between a gesture and a crime when the victim is a child?
In this case, the judge looked for what the law calls intent—the mental state of the person doing the touching. A cheek touch by itself, he said, isn't automatically assault. But the context matters enormously: where it happened, what else occurred, what a reasonable person would infer.
But doesn't the exposure—opening his shirt, reaching for his pants—change everything?
You'd think so. And it might, at trial. The judge was careful to say this bail decision wasn't a judgment on guilt. He was only saying there wasn't enough in the record to prove sexual intent in the cheek-touching specifically.
So the woman who saw it and reported it—what did she actually witness?
She saw him take the girl into the shop, grew suspicious, went to check, and found him with his shirt open and his hand moving toward his pants. That's what triggered the arrest and the charges.
Why would a judge release someone on bail in a case like this?
Bail is about whether someone is a flight risk or a danger while awaiting trial. The judge found Ulla had roots in the community, no prior record, and was unlikely to flee. The bail decision doesn't mean he's innocent.
But doesn't releasing him send a message to the girl, to her family?
That's the tension the judge tried to address by clarifying that his bail reasoning wouldn't influence the actual trial. But yes, bail in child abuse cases is always fraught. The legal system and the human reality don't always align.