Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Prafulla Kumar Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2036 of 2021 & Crl.M.(Bail) 809 of 2021
Decided On : 18-08-2021
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.354, S.354-b
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT: S.10, S.7, S.9
Headnote
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court reiterated that all factors, such as the nature of the charges, the accused's position of trust, and the potential harm to the victim's well-being, must be considered in determining bail eligibility. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a basketball coach, was accused of inappropriate conduct with a 13-year-old girl during a coaching session, leading to the filing of an FIR. The petitioner cited a spotless professional record and alleged personal vendetta behind the accusation. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court determined the charges were serious, with sufficient evidence indicating the need to protect the child and ensure a fair trial. The court rejected the bail application, stating that release could impede the trial process. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The primary issues included the legitimacy and credibility of the accusations, the significance of the accused's professional background, and the overarching goal of safeguarding the child victim. (Paras 12, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the severity of the accusations under the POCSO Act, ruling against granting bail due to the potential threat to fair trial and the child's welfare. (Paras 20, 22)
Result: Bail applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the complaint and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's assessment of prosecution's evidence and public interest (Para 4 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 3. arguments regarding bail and petitioner’s character (Para 5 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal definitions under pocso (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. rejection of bail applications (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 112/2021 dated 10.04.2021, registered at PS Hauz Khas, South District, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 354 -B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act").
2. In the complaint the prosecutrix has stated that the petitioner provides her basketball coaching at Sirifort Sports Complex. It is stated that the Petitioner's wife is a Physical Education Teacher in the school where the prosecutrix studies. It is stated that on 10.04.2021, the prosecutrix, who is a 13-year-old girl, reached Sirifort at 06:15 AM for her basketball coaching. It is stated that after warming up, the petitioner herein asked the Prosecutrix to do an exercise. It is stated that when the prosecutrix was exercising, the petitioner wrapped his arms around her stomach. It is stated that the petitioner then put his hand under her T-shirt, lifted her bra up and held her breasts with both his hands. It is stated that the petitioner asked the Prosecutrix if she had any problem with the act as her parents were known to him. It is stated that the Prosecutrix felt very uncomfortable and asked the petitioner to stop. It is stated that the Prosecutrix went back and narrated the incident to her parents. On the complaint of the prosecutrix FIR No. 112/2021 was registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, South District, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 354 -B IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
3. The investigation related to FIR No. 112/2021 is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed on 08.06.2021. On the basis of the investigation conducted in pursuance of FIR No. 112/2021, it was stated in the charge- sheet that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused, i.e. the Petitioner herein for offences under Section 354 of the IPC and Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
4. Heard Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP appearing for the State, Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned Counsel for the prosecutrix and perused the material available on record.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is 57 years old. He states that the petitioner is currently employed as Chief Coach Basketball and is a Group-A rank officer working with the Sports Authority of India, Government of India. It has been submitted that the Petitioner was promoted to his current position as the Chief Coach on 07.04.2021 by the Director General, Sports Authority of India in recognition of the Petitioner's service, and that he has had a spotless record in his coaching career spanning three decades. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of 12 hours in filing of the FIR. He further states that subsequent to the filing of FIR No. 112/2021, on 10.04.2021, without any prior notice/summons/intimation, police officials arrived at the residence of the Petitioner and took him to the police station. He, therefore, contends that the arrest of the Petitioner was contrary to the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that the Petitioner is suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, High Blood Pressure and Hypertension, and therefore, he falls within the category
