Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
X - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 2946 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2022
In assessing bail, courts must consider the seriousness of the offense, potential for witness tampering, and the mental state of the victim, emphasizing that bail should not undermine justice.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Mental Health Care Act, 2017 - Cancellation of bail - The petition seeks setting aside of bail granted under FIR No. 457/2021 to a respondent accused of rape based on the complainant's mental health condition. The respondent exploited the victim's bipolar disorder to commit the offense. The learned ASJ granted bail despite overlooking critical statements from the victim and attending medical assessments, suggesting a lack of understanding of the legal standards for granting bail. (Paras 1, 11, 22)
(B) Legal Standards for Bail - The court underscored the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, yet emphasized that such principles must be weighed against the gravity of the crime and the likelihood of witness intimidation. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s father seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent, who allegedly took advantage of the victim's mental disorder to perpetrate sexual assault, claiming she consented under duress. This was compounded by prior complaints regarding the respondent's character. (Paras 2, 3, 11)
Findings of Court:
The learned ASJ overlooked significant evidence supporting the victim’s claims, resulting in a decision that lacked justification, leading to the cancellation of bail. (Paras 22, 23)
Issues: The key issues addressed include the adequacy of evidence considered by the trial court in granting bail and the implications of the victim’s mental state on her ability to consent. (Paras 15, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to consider the victim's detailed statements and mental health reports constituted a gross error, justifying the reversal of the bail decision. The court highlighted the importance of understanding the implications of mental health in legal contexts. (Paras 12, 22)
Result: Bail granted to the respondent is canceled. Respondent to surrender within one week.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks cancellation of bail. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against bail grant due to victim's mental condition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent argues prosecution lacks merit. (Para 5) |
| 4. details of the victim's complaints and statements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court observes lapses in lower court's bail decision. (Para 10 , 15 , 18) |
| 6. grounds for cancelling bail established. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. legal insights on bail considerations. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. court's final decision to cancel bail. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. By this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 7th September, 2021 and the consequential cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the learned ASJ, Fast Track Court, POCSO-1, Dwarka Court in FIR No. 457/2021.
2. The petition has been filed through the father/legal guardian of the victim who is a female aged 37 years, suffering from bipolar mental disorder episodic mania and psychotic features since the year 2002 and was diagnosed to be suffering from the mental disorder in 2015 with mania shortly after her marriage. The same has also resulted in initiation of divorce proceedings between the victim and her husband.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order states that despite the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge called for the report of IHBAS on 18th August, 2021; 21st August, 2021; 1st September, 2021; and 6th September, 2021, however without waiting for the final report which was received on 15th September, 2021 passed the impugned order on 7th September, 2021 granting regular bail to the respondent No.2 who was arrested on 30th July, 2021. It is further stated that while granting bail, though the learned Trial Court took notice of the initial statement of the victim recorded before the Police, however failed to notice her detailed statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The mobile phone of the accused showed the mobile number saved with the title 376' and the accused transferred photos of the victim to the said number for which the mobile phone has already been sent to FSL and the report of FSL is still awaited. Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the call detail record show that the prosecutrix came in touch with the respondent No.2 three days prior to 21st July, 2021, and on 21st July, 2021 he lured the prosecutrix on the pretext that there was an evil spirit of a dog in her body which needs to be removed. After taking the prosecutrix to Nainital instead of Vaishno Devi by putting vermilion in her head, the prosecutrix was made to believe that they were married and committed sexual intercourse with her. Statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate clearly shows that she was threatened. The respondent No.2 is living in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix and thus as a neighbourer he knew the medical condition of the prosecutrix. Taking undue advantage of her medical condition, he lured her and took her away to Nainital, where he committed the offence of rape on her punishable under Section 376(2)(l) wherein the sentence awarded is not less than 10 years imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment and fine. Thus, while granting bail to the respondent No.2 the learned Trial Court failed to consider the legal principles applicable for grant of bail i.e. seriousness of offence, likelihood of the witness being intimidated, tampering with the evidence and the conduct of the accused. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 does not have clean antecedents and that prior to the registration of above-noted FIR, two kalandras were registered against him and after registration of the above-noted FIR, the respondent No.2 is involved in FIR No. 734/2021 under Sections 323/341/354/506 IPC registered at PS Vikas Puri on 24th November, 2021.
4. Learned APP for the State cont
