RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Nirmal Jit Kaur, J.
Shri Asharam Bapu —Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan —Respondent
SB Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 10115 of 2013
Decided on 10.2.2014
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 438—Second bail application—FIR was registered for offences under Sections 342, 376(2)(f), 376(d), 370(g), 354a , 506, 509/34 and 120B IPC, under Sections 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice Act and under Section 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6 and 7/8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act—Bail prayed in second bail application on plea that charge-sheet was filed and petitioner was an old person aged about 76 years and was suffering from various ailments—Prosecutrix studying in institute run by trust and which petitioner was Managing Trustee alleged that petitioner tried to force her to perform oral sex—Allegations were covered under the definition of penetrative sexual assault as well aggravated penetrative sexual assault—Evidence to show that prosecutrix was brought to religious place under pretext of treating her from evil spirits —Offence has more serious when committed by person whose public image was of a godman, a saint—Subsequent events to show that threats were being given to witnesses—Bail application deserved to be dismissed. (Paras 17, 20, 26 to 28)
Key Points: - The allegation that the accused tried to force the prosecutrix to perform oral sex falls within the definition of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 375(A) of the IPC [Paras 17, 5000259670017]. - The offence is deemed aggravated because it was committed by a person holding a public image of a godman, against a minor student, and under the pretext of providing treatment, which attracts enhanced punishment under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act [Para 20]. - Bail was denied because the prosecution demonstrated a risk of witness tampering and evidence tampering, and the court emphasized that successive bail applications require a drastic change in circumstances, which was not present [Para 26]. - The court considered the serious nature of the accusation, the likelihood of the accused intimidating witnesses, and the need to protect the victim and ensure a fair trial while safeguarding the right to a speedy trial [Paras 26, 44–47]. - The trial court was directed to proceed on a day-to-day basis to ensure a speedy trial and prevent further hindrances, reinforcing that bail would impede the investigation and trial [Para 94].
JUDGMENT
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. —This is second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is seeking bail in Session Case No.152/2013 arising out of FIR No.122/2013, P.S. Mahila Thana (West) Jodhpur and 0/2013, P.S. Kamla Market Delhi, pending trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for offence under Sections for the offence under Sections 342, 376(2)(f), 376(d), 370(4), 354a, 506, 509/34, 120-B of the IPC, Sections 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Section 5(f)/6, 5 (G)/6, 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 1.10.2013 by a detailed order. The second bail application has been filed on the ground that challan has since been filed and that the earlier bail was dismissed at the point of time when the investigation of the case registered against the petitioner was in progress.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Ram Jethmalani, addressed arguments on 7.1.2014 as well as on 13.1.2014, which were continued by Mr. C.V. Nagesh, Senior Counsel, on the subsequent date and finally concluded by handing over written submissions on 3.2.2014.
4. It was argued that the material collected does not make out a serious offence for which a sentence of imprisonment exceeding five years can be imposed upon the petitioner. The allegations alleged against the petitioner are under three different enactments. Firstly, under Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Under these Sections, a child should be procured for the purpose of any hazardous employment and the offence should be committed by a person who is in actual charge of or control over the child, whereas, there is no evidence available on record that the prosecutrix, who is a child, was procured for the purpose of any employment or that the petitioner was the person having the actual charge of or control over the child so assaulted.
5. Secondly, accusations are under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of having committed the act of aggravated penetrative sexual offence. Under Section 6 of the said Act, aggravated penetrative sexual assault is attributable to certain class of persons who have committed the act of penetrative sexual assault; they being a police officer, member of the armed force or security forces, a public servant, a person on the management or on the staff of jail, remand home, protection home, observation home, or other place of custody or care and protection established by or under any law for the time being in force, management or staff of a hospital and the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, whereas, in the present case, the prosecutrix was a student of Gurukul, which is run by a trust and therefore, the petitioner has got nothing to do with the institution where the prosecutrix was studying and the said offence was not committed in such an institution. Further, from the several statements of the prosecutrix, it is evident that there is no allegation of penetration. Thus, from the statement of the prosecutrix, if taken on face value, the only conclusion one can be arrived, is that her modesty came to be outraged and nothing else, for which the maximum sentence that could be imposed is for a period extending upto five years only. The offence was not so serious that would disentitle the petitioner to have the benefit of bail.
6. Thirdly, the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences which are made penal under Sections 342, 354-A, 506, 509 and under Section 376(d)(f) and 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code defines “Rape”. “Rape” as defined under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is in para materia with the definition of penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. While dealing with the penetrat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.