Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Kashish Batra - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln No. 477 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2021
BAIL - Regular Bail - Sections 370, 370(A), 372, 374, 376 and 342 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 167(1)(a), 167(2) read with Section 173(1)(a) Cr.P.C, and the legal principles laid down in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, Lillu v. State of Haryana, and State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash. The court also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fakhrey Alam v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and its applicability to the case. The judgment highlighted the seriousness of the offence of rape and its impact on the victim, emphasizing the need for stern and severe treatment of such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for seeking regular bail in a case involving charges of rape, human trafficking, and other related offences. The victim, a 16-year-old girl, alleged that she was raped by the petitioner and others after being forced into flesh trade.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were sufficient materials in the charge-sheet against the petitioner and that the possibility of the petitioner putting pressure on the prosecutrix, if released on bail, could not be ruled out. The court also directed the Trial Court to hear the arguments on framing of charge and examine all the public witnesses, including the prosecutrix, expeditiously.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's eligibility for bail, the seriousness of the alleged offences, the impact on the victim, and the delay in filing the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the severity of the accusations, the nature of evidence, and the likelihood of witness tampering in determining the bail application. It also emphasized the need for stern treatment of rape cases and the responsibility of the courts to provide proper legal protection to child victims.
Final Decision: The application for bail was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for seeking regular bail in FIR No.442/2020, dated 28.10.2020, registered at Police Station Tigri, Delhi, under Sections 370, 370(A), 372, 374, 376 and 342 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. On 28.10.2020, a complaint was given by the prosecutrix stating that she is studying in 8th standard and is staying with her family at B-453, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. It is stated that her father caught her chatting with a boy named Nadeem with whom she had fallen in love. It is stated that on 11.07.2020, her elder brother once again caught her talking/chatting on phone with Nadeem and he slapped her. The prosecutrix states that she left her home and got into a battery rickshaw. She did not have her mobile phone. She did not had any money. She states that in that rickshaw she met one Imrana who inquired as to why the prosecutrix was crying. She states that Imrana told her that she works for an NGO and that she would help the prosecutrix. It is stated that Imrana took the prosecutrix to her home, gave her food and took her to KNF Hotel, Gurgaon where the petitioner was present. It is stated in the complaint that Imrana and the petitioner herein gave her something to drink and she became semiconscious and the petitioner raped her. It is stated that even though she was not fully conscious she could feel that she was being raped and could see the petitioner who had removed all his clothes. It is stated that Imrana kept the prosecutrix at the Hotel for three days and when she told Imrana that she wanted to go home, Imrana took her home but told her that she should not reveal that she has been raped. It is stated that when she went back home she refused to stay with her parents because she was frightened. It is stated that the prosecutrix came back with Imrana who sent her with one Rashid. It is stated that Rashid took the prosecutrix to Moti Nagar and raped her. It is stated that the prosecutrix ran away from Imrana and Rashid and went to Greater Noida where a man named Mukesh gave her his phone and she spoke to Nadeem, who asked her to come to Meerut. It is stated that when she went to Meerut, Nadeem refused to keep her with him. It is stated that Mukesh brought the prosecutrix back to Greater Noida and took her to his house where she spent 14 days with Mukesh. Her family was informed and her uncle took her back home. On the said statement, FIR under Sections 370, 370(A), 372, 374, 376 and 342 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered.
3. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate wherein she reiterated her statement given in the complaint. Investigation was conducted. During investigation, Imrana, Kashish Batra (the petitioner herein) and Rashid were arrested. The petitioner was arrested on 23.11.2020. It is stated that during the investigation the prosecutrix along with her mother were taken to FNF Co Living, U Block, DLF III Gurgaon, where it is alleged that the petitioner raped the victim. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was living as a paying guest in a company called FNF Co Living, where the victim was raped. The Manager of FNF Co Living revealed that on the request of the mother of the petitioner he allowed him to run a kitchen in his Paying Guest accommodation at the ground floor. The petitioner started visiting his Paying Guest premises since June, 2020 and he used to stay there at night as he had to start the kitchen in the said premises.
4. It is stated that the CDR records and location report of the petitioner and Imrana were obtained to ascertain as to whether the petitioner was staying at the place where the offence was committed. It was found that the petitioner was in and around the vicinity of the place of occurrence where the first incident of rape was alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the victim was give
The severity of the accusations, the impact on the victim, and the likelihood of witness tampering are crucial factors in determining bail applications in cases involving heinous offences such as rap....
The court established that in cases involving serious charges such as rape of a minor, bail should be denied to prevent potential tampering with evidence and to protect the victim's safety.
Bail – Court should be circumspect in granting bail in POCSO cases.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious offences like rape, highlighting the severity of the charge, nature of evidence, and potential for witness tampering as critical considerati....
Bail Application dismissed - Sexual offence - Absence of FSL report - It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corro....
Corroboration in the prosecutrix's statements and medical evidence is crucial in determining the credibility of the prosecution's version.
The consensual nature of the relationship, the age of the accused and the prosecutrix, and discrepancies in the statements given at different times are crucial factors in considering bail under POCSO....
Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.
The seriousness of the offences, nature of evidence, and principles of bail as established by the Apex Court are crucial factors in determining entitlement to bail.
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
