Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yogesh Khanna, J.
Manish Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3604 of 2021 Cr.M.A. 23562 of 2022, 25990 of 2022
Decided On : 27-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Harshveer Pratap Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Deepika, PS K M Pur and SI Snehlata, CAW Cell Nanakpura.
Mr.Dibyanshu Pandey and Ms.Soumya Kumar, Advocates. for complainant with mother of complainant.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of supplementary chargesheets at the instance of the accused does not entitle him to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court also considered the right to speedy trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

Headnote:
POCSO - Bail Application - Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. - 6 POCSO Act, 23/26 JJ Act - The court discussed the filing of supplementary chargesheets, adherence to statutory timelines, and the right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The judgment of Kashish Bindra Vs. State was referenced to support the decision. The court also considered the right to speedy trial under Section 35 POCSO Act and granted bail to the accused.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a 16-year-old victim who alleged assault and rape by the accused. The accused was in custody, and the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period. The petitioner sought bail based on the filing of supplementary chargesheets and delay in framing charges. The court considered the victim's delayed reporting of the offense, the period of custody of the accused, and granted bail to the accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period and the petitioner's contentions did not entitle him to default bail. The court also considered the right to speedy trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act and granted bail to the accused.
Issues: The issues included the filing of supplementary chargesheets, adherence to statutory timelines for filing chargesheets, and the right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The court also considered the right to speedy trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the filing of supplementary chargesheets at the instance of the accused did not entitle him to default bail. The court also considered the right to speedy trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act and granted bail to the accused based on various factors including the delayed reporting of the offense by the victim.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused based on the considerations of the filing of supplementary chargesheets, adherence to statutory timelines, and the right to speedy trial under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly! Please provide the legal document content or specify the key points you'd like me to analyze.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J.

1. BAIL APPLN.3604/2021 is filed for grant of bail to the petitioner not only on ground of default but otherwise and CRL.M.C.1705/2021 is filed for setting aside the order dated 09.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Session's Judge, Fast Track Court-POCSO, South East District, Delhi whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground the Investigating Officer has filed the final report after completion of investigation.

2. Firstly, the Crl.M.C.No.1705/2021 is taken up as it pertain to legal issues and right of petitioner and BA No.3604/2021 be considered thereafter.

3. The brief facts are: on 11.02.2021 the victim was seen by lady staff of EFICOR NGO and Paryas Railway Child Line at New Delhi Railway Station and after interrogation they brought her to Kotla Mubarak police station along with staff of PS New Delhi Railway Station.

4. The statement of victim was recorded in front of both NGOs wherein she alleged to be 16 years old and working as a domestic help at H No. XXX, INA Colony New Delhi. The prosecutrix hail from the State of Bihar and one of her neighbour Pankaj Kumar and his wife Smt. Shail Sahu brought her to Delhi. They made her do house hold work. She further stated when Manish, the brother-in-law of Pankaj visited at H.No.XXX INA Colony, New Delhi he allegedly assaulted and raped her several times about 8-9 months back at the night time and last incident happened two months prior to the registration of the case. She alleged herself to be disturbed and decided to return to her native place Bihar.

5. On 10.02.2021, she hired an auto for Railway Station and booked a Railway ticket from Delhi to Bihar with the help of an auto driver. Due to schedule of train for the next day she came back to INA Colony and spent night at terrace of above said address. Next day early morning she departed for the Railway Station where she was rescued by NGO. Accordingly, the present case was registered. The mother of the victim was informed. On 11.02.2021 accused Manish was arrested and sent to JC. Medical examination of both the prosecutrix and accused Manish were conducted at AIIMS Hospital and all the exhibits collected were sent to RFSL Chanakya Puri for expert opinion. On 12.02.2021, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix was recorded before the Court, wherein she supported her allegations. On 15.02.2021, the child was produced before the CWC, during counselling the mother of the victim was also present. After counselling, as per the direction of CWC/Lajpat Nagar the custody of prosecutrix was handed over to Global Family Charitable Trust and child was produced before the SDM and the Labour Commissioner.

6. During investigation school documents of victim were verified from Bihar. On 23.02.2021 the mother of victim also joined the investigation and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she stated her daughter used to talk to her everyday through phone but never informed about anything. CDRs of mobile numbers of accused from 01.07.2020 to 11.02.2021 were received and were analysed and per CDR location of accused was found in the surrounding area of INA and CDR of victim's mother was also collected and was found the prosecutrix was in continuous touch with her mother through mobile phone.

7. As per the record of SCRB, the accused has no previous involvement in any other case. The chargesheet has since been filed in the present matter.

8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner the first chargesheet was filed on 09.04.2021. Supplementary chargesheet was then filed on 05.03.2022. Again a supplementary chargesheet was filed on 23.05.2022. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner since the police has been filing the supplementary chargesheets, hence the timeline provided under the POCSO Act for filing the chargesheet has not been adhered to and the accused has been in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document