The severity of the allegations and the punishment prescribed under the POCSO Act are relevant factors to consider when deciding on a bail application.

ORDER

1. This is an application filed by the Applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking Regular Bail in FIR No. 0035/2020 dated 15.01.2020 under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as `POCSO Act'), Police Station Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.

2. Applicant is the younger brother-in-law of the victim's mother (Chacha of the victim) and is aged about 20 years. Applicant has three siblings and he is the youngest of the three. The eldest brother of the Applicant namely, Suresh and his wife Mamta have three daughters aged about 5, 8 and 12 years respectively and the victim herein is the youngest daughter, aged 5 years.

3. Case of the prosecution is that the Applicant repeatedly molested the victim by rubbing and inserting his finger in the private part (vagina) of the victim. In the statement given by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she clearly stated that the Applicant repeatedly touched her private parts. On 16.01.2020, the statement of the victim was recorded in the Rohini Court under Section 164 Cr.PC, where she reiterated the role of the Applicant. Mother of the victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC stated that the Applicant was indulging in the said act for the past 1= year and that she had learnt of this around 7-8 months ago.

4. The Applicant had approached the Sessions Court seeking regular bail, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2020.

5. Status Report was filed on 17.06.2020. Thereafter, a Supplementary Status Report has been filed on 25.06.2020. The complainant is duly represented by her counsel.

6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that the victim is the youngest daughter of Applicant's eldest brother, who has a matrimonial discord with his wife and the Applicant is being falsely implicated only out of matrimonial vengeance between the two. Applicant and the family of the elder brother lived in the same house. It is further submitted that the time of the incidence in the FIR is 12.30 p.m. on 14.01.2020. As per the CDR of the Applicant filed by the Police in the Charge sheet, at 12.08 and 12.35 p.m., on the said date, Applicant was at his shop i.e. 868, Swaroop Nagar Extension, New Delhi. The shop of the Applicant is about 2 kms from his residence and it is a walking distance of about 15 to 20 minutes. As a routine, even on 14.01.2020, Applicant went to his shop at around 10 a.m. and came back at about 8 p.m. It is impossible that the Applicant would be present at 12.30 p.m, at two locations.

7. Learned counsel further submits that around the area where the Applicant has his mobile repairing shop, `Krishna Mobile Repairing Shop', there are substantial number of CCTV cameras installed at different locations. Applicant had moved an application before the Trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to direct the DCP, Police Station, Swaroop Nagar, to produce the CCTV footage of all the cameras installed in the area around the shop of the Applicant so that truth could surface. In the order dated 30.01.2020, the Trial Court recorded the statement of the IO that she had no objection and rather she had already moved an application for obtaining the 500 GB hard disk. Trial Court had accordingly directed that necessary steps be taken for collecting the CCTV footage of the relevant time and the relevant places. Court had also, on the request of the Applicant, directed the IO to look into the CDR and the cell location of the Applicant. It is submitted by the counsel that till date the IO has not furnished the CCTV footage and this raises serious doubts on the fair investigation of the Police and also reflects that there is something which is being deliberately kept away from the Court.

8. Learned counsel further submits that while dismissing the Bail Application, the Trial Court has recorded in its order, the contention of the Applicant that even earlier, prior to the present complaint and the FIR, victim's mother had tried