Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Shivam Soni - Appellant
Versus
State(GNCTD) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3243/2019 & Crl. M.A. No. 43735/2019
Decided On : 07-04-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Sexual Assault - IPC Section 376 - RPwD Act, 2016 Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case of sexual assault under IPC Section 376. Both the petitioner and the complainant were visually impaired. The court considered the delay in filing the complaint and the special circumstances of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioner, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, and directed the state to provide the complainant and the petitioner with court documents in Braille script to ensure effective pursuit and protection of their legal rights.
Issues: Delay in filing the complaint, special circumstances of the case, rights of differently abled individuals under RPwD Act, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the positive duty of the appropriate government to ensure that all public documents are in accessible formats and to provide necessary facilities for recording testimonies and arguments in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioner and directed the state to make suitable arrangements for providing court documents in readable language to visually impaired individuals in all such cases.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. (Oral). - This is an application filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.635/2019 registered under Section 376 of IPC at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar.
2. In brief, as per the case of the prosecution, on 23.04.2019 WSI Anita received DD No. 28-A and the complainant/prosecutrix aged about 22 years narrated her about the incident of sexual assault by the accused/petitioner.
The statement of the complainant/prosecutrix was recorded after due counseling. As per allegations, both complainant/prosecutrix and accused/petitioner are blind and they developed good relationship/friendship in 2018. The petitioner used to say that he wanted to be complainant's better half. The petitioner got job in State Bank of India in 2019 and in March, 2019 he hired a rented accommodation in GTB Nagar. On 19.04.2019, the petitioner called the complainant/prosecutrix at his rented accommodation and asked her to stay as he was not feeling well and thereafter tried to forcefully indulge and have sex with her. The complainant/prosecutrix denied for the same. Thereafter on 24.04.2019, accused/petitioner put sindoor on her head and established physical relations in the rented accommodation on the assurance of solemnizing marriage.
3. The application has been opposed by the learned APP for the State as well as the legal aid counsel representing the complainant/prosecutrix.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, ld. APP for state and counsel representing prosecutrix.
The petitioner is on interim protection granted vide order dated 03.01.2020 by this Court. Thereafter, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned Trial Court and is pending for consideration of charge. The pertinent fact which needs to be noticed and requires a special consideration is that both the petitioner as well as the complainant/prosecutrix are differently abled (i.e. blind).
5. The incident in this case allegedly took place on 24.04.2019 but the complaint has only been made on 23.12.2019 after a gap of about 8 months. A call alleged to have been made on behalf of the accused/petitioner for influencing the complainant/prosecutrix was not found to be correct on investigation, as stated by the learned APP for the State on instructions. The petitioner has already joined the investigation and is not required for purpose of custodial interrogation or recovery. No purpose would be served by incarcerating the accused/petitioner, at this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is also differently abled.
6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioner be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned/Ld trial court and subject to the condition that the accused/petitioner shall not communicate with, or come into contact with the victim by any mode whatsoever and the prosecution witnesses, or any member of the victim's family, or tamper with the evidence of the case.
Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/prosecutrix prays that a copy of the order be provided in the readable (Braille) script to the complainant/prosecutrix.
8. The observations of the Supreme Court of India in Vikash Kumar v.Union Public Service Commission, AIR 2021 SC 2447 in the context of inalienable rights of the differently abled under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016(in short "RPwD Act") are apt to be noted:
".... Individual dignity under girds the rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016. Intrinsic to its realization is recognizing the worth of every person as an equal member of society. Respect for the dignity of others and fostering condition
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
