SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Kashish Batra - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 477 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - POCSO Act - Allegations of sexual assault on a minor - Bail application dismissed as petitioner poses a flight risk and may tamper with evidence - Reliance on corroborative evidence from call detail records and the statement of the Child Welfare Committee backing the prosecutrix's account of abuse - Delay in FIR not deemed fatal in this context. (Paras 1, 8, 16)

(B) Principles of Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the severity of accusations, potential tampering of evidence, and the preliminary satisfaction regarding evidence - The seriousness of the crime necessitates a cautious approach, particularly involving minors. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is charged with multiple serious offenses including rape and human trafficking of a minor, arising from a complaint where the prosecutrix was allegedly lured and assaulted. The petitioner was arrested after an investigation where evidence including call detail records was collected. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found substantive evidence against the petitioner, including corroborative testimony and risk factors involving the victim's safety, leading to the conclusion that bail should not be granted. (Paras 16)

Issues: The core issues included whether there was a risk of the petitioner tampering with evidence or pressuring the prosecutrix if released on bail, and whether the delay in filing the FIR was significant within the context of this case. (Paras 6, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the weight of the accusations against the petitioner, the danger he posed to the victim, and the lack of compelling reasons to grant bail despite procedural arguments about delay and charge-sheet filings. (Paras 15, 16)

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the crime and facts regarding the victim (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. initial bail application dismissed (Para 6)
3. arguments from the petitioner and opposition (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's analysis of bail considerations (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. reasons for denying the bail application (Para 16)
6. final order and directives for trial (Para 17 , 18)

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 locati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top