Bail applications under serious charges involving minors require strong grounds for grant, especially when testimony is ongoing and credibility is in question.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6 and 17 - Bail application - Allegations of gang rape of a minor girl - Accused seeks bail on grounds of false implication and delay in trial proceedings - Court dismisses bail application citing grave and serious nature of allegations, along with pending testimony of the victim. (Paras 2, 4, 10)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - Parity with co-accused does not apply as one was admitted on different grounds, namely being a woman with a child. (Paras 6, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in FIR registered under multiple severe provisions against a 16-year-old girl, alleging sexual assault and threats. The prosecution argues the girl's testimony supports the allegations, while the defense claims she has retracted her statement and was initially unfit to give evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court finds the allegations grave, the delay in trial due to external circumstances (pandemic), and the victim's testimony ongoing, thus leaving the matter unresolved and the bail application ungranted.

Issues: The main issues addressed included the credibility of the victim’s testimony, the grounds for bail concerning false implication, and the nature and seriousness of the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the severity of allegations and the procedural integrity of ongoing testimony outweigh arguments for bail, maintaining that serious charges should not be dismissed lightly.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of case details and allegations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for bail based on previous bail and family circumstances. (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments against bail highlighting seriousness of allegations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. evaluation of victim's testimony and its implications. (Para 9)
5. final decision on bail application. (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER

(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in case FIR No. 115/2018 under Sections 376 /306/506/323/109 IPC read with Section 6 /17 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station Mianwali Nagar.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 11.04.2018, DD No. 41A was received at police station Pashim Vihar West and the same was marked to ASI regarding MLC No. 5743/2018 of prosecutrix from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. It is alleged that the MLC of the prosecutrix was handed over to ASI in which doctor gave the alleged history of consumption of unknown compound and patient is drowsy and is unfit for statement. It is alleged that doctor gave a sealed exhibit of gastric leverage of prosecutrix with the sample seal which was taken by ASI through seizure memo. It is alleged that victim was found to be UTP positive and at the time of incident she was 16 years old and DOB is 02.11.2002. After that, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 13.4.2018 wherein it is alleged by the prosecutrix that she was a student of class 9th and accused Ram Lal @ Ganna started talking and meeting her at her school. It is alleged that in January 2018 when her school holiday was over, the time came after about 2.15 accused Ramlal @ Ganna took her to his friend's house four times, where he had done wrong thing (rape) with her and threatened her that he will kill her parents if she told anyone about it. After that, a case under Section 376 /306/506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act was registered at police station Paschim Vihar, Delhi, West.

3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner has already been admitted to bail and he seeks parity. It is further submitted by him that the girl child of the petitioner is not keeping well, and he is one who is to support his family. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and has been arrested after about 1. 7 years on the basis of improved tutored statement of the complainant. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner finds no mention in the FIR bearing no. 115/2018, and the victim in her improved statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Section 164 Cr.P.C has implicated the petitioner and his wife falsely. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner does not even know the address of the jhuggi of the petitioner where it is alleged that she was raped by accused Ram Lal @ Ganna. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that victim, during her examination-in-chief has not supported the case, and she was even cross- examined by learned APP. So, no reliance can be placed upon her testimony. It is further submitted that as per Section 35 of POCSO Act, the recording of evidence should have been completed within 30 days, and solely on this ground the petitioner is entitled to bail, and for this purpose, he has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Vinay Vs. The State of Karnataka decided on 13 July 2017; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694; Panchhi Vs. State of UP (1998) 7 SCC 177 and Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2018) 3 SCC 22.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.1.2020, and no useful purpose would b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document