Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Suspended Delhi Govt Officer’s Children In POCSO Case

In the matter, Kankha’s wife is also alleged to have administered abortion pills to the minor victim.

The applications for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners before the Apex Court had been rejected by the High Court.

The petitioners in both the SLPs were implicated in the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 509, 323, 313, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 6 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Therefore, while granting anticipatory bail, a bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “Virtually, the main offences are alleged against the father of the petitioners. Earlier, as per the order 19.10.2023 passed in SLP (Crl) No.13578/2023, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioner-therein. The learned senior counsel appearing for the prosecutrix produced a copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State states that the petitioners have joined the investigation. After going through the statement, and hearing learned counsel on both sides and after perusing the material on record, we are of the view that these Special Leave Petitions can be disposed of…”.

Accordingly, the bench directed the release of the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/-, however the same was subject to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and further subject to the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) CrPC.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the petitioner and ASG K.M. Natraj appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the minor victim was the daughter of a person known to the accused officer.

The SLP impugned an order of the Delhi High Court, where the Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to his children as it was of the opinion that prima facie their "comprehensive interrogation" was required in the matter. Further highlighted that since they were “untraceable” therefore, granting them pre-arrest bail could hamper the course of investigation.

The High Court had underlined the seriousness of the crime, the mental condition of the minor victim who had recently lost her father then, and being sexually assaulted by a care-taker for a consistent period of time.

Cause Title: Harsh Prateek Khakha v. State of NCT of Delhi