The court found no credible evidence to substantiate the allegations of sexual assault against the petitioner, allowing anticipatory bail while upholding victim protection measures.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 438 and 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 377 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Application for anticipatory bail in sexual assault case involving a minor - Complainant alleged sexual assault upon her 6-year-old son by the petitioner - Medical documents provided by complainant deemed forged; no supporting evidence found - Co-accused already granted bail; allegations of retaliation questioned. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Conditions imposed include non-contact with the child and complainant, distance maintenance from the complainant's residence and the child's school - Conditions highlighted the gravity of the charges while balancing the rights of the accused. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of sexually assaulting the complainant’s 6-year-old son, allegations presented by the complainant after a four-year delay; the credibility of documentation supporting claims was disputed.

Findings of Court:
No evidence supporting the complainant's allegations; the petitioner previously cooperated with the investigation and no custodial interrogation deemed necessary.

Issues: Whether the allegations were substantially supported by credible evidence; potential for witness tampering.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the absence of credible medical evidence and the established pattern of behavior indicated the possibility of retaliatory accusations by the complainant; thus, anticipatory bail was granted.

Result: Anticipatory bail granted with specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. facts of the alleged sexual assault. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments against granting anticipatory bail. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's analysis of evidence and medical documents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. conditions for granting anticipatory bail. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 627/2020 registered under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Model Town.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the present case has been registered on the complaint of Dr. Anju Gurawa. She alleged in her complaint that MS Lata (the present petitioner) visited her home on several occasions and always tried to come close to her son (Victim K. Aged 6 Years). Complainant further alleged that the petitioner sexually assaulted her child by pressing the private part of the child, putting her finger in the anus of the child bitten the lips of the child and pinched under his arm pits. Complainant further alleged that petitioner did all this with the child while he was in his father Surender's custody. Surender used to take him to play and pick from day care. Her child told all this on 26th of Sep 2020.

3. Complainant further alleged that the petitioner, who is working as assistant professor in Hindi Department of Venkateshwara College is in sexual relationship with Surrender Kumar and with the help and permission of Surendera Kumar, petitioner used to sexually assault with her child.

4. During the course of investigation victim K was got medically examined vide MLC No 5742 dated 12/10/20 at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital Rohini Delhi. The statement of the victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded in which he corroborated the contents of the complaint. In his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC he stated that all this has been happening to him since he was 3 years old.

5. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the complainant who assisted the Ld. APP for the State and perused the Status Report and the records of this case.

6. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that co-accused who is the husband of the complainant and father of the victim has already been admitted to anticipatory bail. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the complainant is a professor in Delhi University and the petitioner is also working in Delhi University and the complainant has apprehension that the petitioner and his co-accused are in affair and in order to take revenge against her husband she has used her minor child and filed this FIR which has been lodged after a gap of 4 years. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the husband of complainant who is the co-accused has already filed a divorce petition in the year 2019 against the complainant. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has joined the investigation and nothing is required to be recovered from her. He further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner and sending her behind the bar will serve no purpose.

7. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that since the husband of complainant has filed a divorce case against complainant who is suspicious about the affair between the petitioner and her husband, so she is adopting all means to see that the petitioner is not granted anticipatory bail and in order to achieve that purpose she has even filed forged and fabricated medical documents of her minor child which has been got verified by the IO and details have been mentioned in the Status Report.

8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State with the assistance of the counsel for the complainant that the child is aged about 6 years and he could only reveal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document