Not Sure That He Won’t Influence Witnesses Or Flee From Justice: Delhi HC While Denying Bail To School Teacher Accused Of Raping Student
|The Delhi High Court has yesterday denied bail to a school teacher who was accused of raping a girl student. It said that there is no surety as to whether he would not influence witnesses or flee from justice.
A Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held, “Even more importantly, in the circumstances obtaining in the case, in particular the relative social standing of the petitioner vis-a-vis the prosecutrix and the societal milieu, this court is not sure that the petitioner would not influence witnesses or flee from justice or otherwise attempt to prejudice the trial of the case, if he is enlarged on bail. … In the above view of the matter, this court is not inclined to admit the petitioner to regular bail at this stage.”
The Bench observed that the forensic evidence is strongly against the accused as the DNA found on certain exhibits relating to the victim collected during the investigation matched with that of the accused.
Senior Advocate Suruchi Aggarwal with Advocate Jugal Wadhwa appeared on behalf of the accused/petitioner while APP Amit Sahni and Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal appeared on behalf of the State and complainant respectively.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered against him under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was in custody since June 2022. The petitioner was the school teacher and used to give out-of-school tuition to the victim and one day on the pretext of providing her notes for an exam, he committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the victim at his home after making her unconscious.
When the victim regained consciousness, the petitioner showed her an objectionable video recording of the incident and threatened her against telling anyone about the same, or else he would make the said video viral. Subsequently, using the same threat he committed sexual intercourse with her many times and continued doing the same even after she attained the age of majority. Hence, a complaint was filed and on conducting MLC, it was found that the victim’s hymen was ruptured.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “Considering that the interaction between the petitioner and the prosecutrix is supposed to have been only that between a teacher and a student, it remains to be explained as to why the DNA matches … The court cannot also ignore the fact that since the petitioner and the prosecutrix were interacting as teacher and student, the alleged offence, if it comes to be proved during trial, takes an egregious and aggravated form, particularly in view of the specific statutory mandate under section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and section 5(f) of the POCSO Act.”
The Court further said that at this stage, when it is considering a bail petition, no final conclusions are sought to be drawn, one way or the other.
“What can be said with some certitude however, is that the allegations in the present case require cogent answers before they can be discarded”, also said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the bail plea.
Cause Title- Babu Lal Bhawariya v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:4193)