IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Bablu – Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondents
Bail Appln. 510 of 2020 AND Cr.M.A. 3881 of 2020
Decided On : 31-05-2023
Bail - Serious Allegations - Minor Victim - Dismissal of Bail Application
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of sexual assault on a minor victim. The victim and her mother supported the case by testifying in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were grave and serious, and the victim and her mother fully supported their case. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations, the minority of the victim at the time of the offense, and the familial relationship between the petitioner and the victim.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the serious allegations of sexual assault on a minor victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that considering the seriousness of the allegations, the minority of the victim, and the familial relationship between the petitioner and the victim, no benefit could be given to the petitioner at that stage, and the bail application was dismissed.
Final Decision: The bail application, along with any pending application, was dismissed by the court.
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail case FIR No.210/2019, under Sections 376/506/511 IPC and Sections 6/12 of POCSO Act registered at PS Vijay Vihar.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 03.08.2019, the victim and her younger brother were at home when the petitioner, namely, Bablu who is the mama (Maternal uncle) of the victim sent the younger brother of victim to get some money from one Kalu bhaiya. After younger brother of victim left, the petitioner was alone at home with the victim, he started removing his clothes and also undressed the victim. It is alleged that the petitioner laid on her, inserted his finger into her private part and when she asked him to stop otherwise, she will tell her mother, the petitioner threatened to kill her and thereafter, left the spot. Subsequently, FIR No. 210/2019, under Sections 376/506/511 IPC and Sections 6/12 of POCSO Act was got registered at PS Vijay Vihar.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the status report filed by the State.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and is in judicial custody since 07.08.2019. He submitted that there is no material produced except the testimony of the victim to show that the victim was home alone and the petitioner was present at the spot of incident. He further submitted that the father of the victim does not work and the same proves that the victim was not alone at home at the time of alleged incident as her father must also be present at home. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner who works as a Dhobi/washerman is the sole bread earner of the family and trial would take a long time to conclude so no purpose will be served by keeping him in judicial custody.
5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the bail application and has argued on the lines of the status report. She submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature and the victim who was only 6 years of age at the time of incident has supported the case in view of her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner. She further submitted that even if as per the statement of mother of the victim the father of victim does not work, it doesn't mean that he puts up at home and therefore, the contention that the father was present at home during the alleged incident raised by the counsel for the petitioner is baseless as it was neither raised by the petitioner during evidence nor did he cross-examine the victim or any other witness on this aspect.
6. In the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. The victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) in their testimony recoded in the court have fully supported their case. The perusal of the same shows that the victim has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner of removing her clothes, inserting his finger into her private part and threatening to kill her.
7. As far as the discrepancy regarding the presence of the father of victim at home during the alleged incident, the same is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this stage.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the minority of victim at the time of the alleged offence coupled with serious allegations against the petitioner who is the maternal uncle (mama) of the victim, no benefit can be given to him at this stage and the bail application along with pending application (if any) is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case.
Serious allegations, minority of the victim, and familial relationship with the accused are relevant factors in deciding bail applications in cases involving sexual assault on minors.
The seriousness of the allegations and the pending testimony of the victim's parents were key factors in denying the bail application.
The seriousness of the allegations, cooperation in the investigation, and verification of the victim's age are crucial factors in considering anticipatory bail applications.
The court granted bail considering prolonged custody, the completion of witness examination, and the absence of necessity for further detention despite the severity of allegations.
The court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence and the absence of prior criminal records, despite the serious allegations under POCSO.
The seriousness of allegations, age of the victim, victim's statements, and medical evidence are crucial factors in deciding bail applications in cases of sexual assault on minors.
The court considered the impact of Section 29 of the POCSO Act on bail applications after framing of charges, and emphasized the need to balance the rights of the accused and the protection of childr....
The court emphasized that at the stage of bail, the court cannot go into the detailed examination of the facts and should take a prima facie view, considering the gravity of the offense and the circu....
Knowledge of impending violence must be demonstrated for conspiracy; mere association does not suffice to deny bail.
The presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act applies, and the significant age difference between the accused and the victim renders the alleged crime particularly heinous.
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.