Victim's Parents Have Been At Loggerheads & Have Filed Multiple Complaints Against Each Other: Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To POCSO Accused
The Delhi High Court granted pre-arrest bail to an accused in a POCSO case, noticing that the parents of the victims have been at loggerheads and have filed multiple complaints against each other.
The Bench stated that Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) provided a statutory presumption, yet it does not bind the courts to accept the prosecution's version as "gospel truth." Courts were required to exercise discretion when granting bail, taking into account the facts of the case.
The Bench allowed the application of anticipatory bail applied for by a father who was accused of raping his 17-year-old daughter.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “The allegations like in the present case are of such nature when put to the accused, especially when he happens to be the father of the victim, that he would be inevitably be looked down upon by society and it would have far reaching social consequences. The possibility of getting such complaint lodged, especially when the parents have history of matrimonial discord, cannot be ruled out.”
Advocate Jaideep Malik represented the applicant, while APP Pradeep Gahalot appeared for the respondent.
The accused, who was the father of the victim, was implicated in an FIR for offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354B (use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), and 506(II) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
The accused contended he was falsely implicated due to a matrimonial dispute with his wife. He contended that on the day of the incident, the victim herself stated in writing and during her medical examination that her father (the accused) had done nothing wrong to her. The accused also argued that the FIR was an afterthought and an attempt by his wife to harass him.
On the other hand, the victim contended that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she maintained that the accused had sexually assaulted her and touched her private parts.
The Court took note of the allegation of “touching her private parts and removing her clothes in order to commit rape was not mentioned to the police or was recorded in the MLC which was recorded on the day of the alleged incident…Although the incident took place on 17.03.2022, the complaint pursuant which FIR was registered was only given after four days.”
The Court stated that “merely, because Section 29 of the Act provides for a statutory presumption, the same does not bind the Courts to accept the prosecution version as gospel truth and the discretion in relation to grant of bail is still to be exercised considering the facts of the case.”
“It is not in doubt that an order for pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use the same as a shield. At the same time, it cannot be denied that a great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached with arrest. The purpose of custodial interrogation is to aid the investigation and is not punitive,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application.
Cause Title: Sanjay Khatri v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4088)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Jaideep Malik and Siddharth Soni
Respondent: APP Pradeep Gahalot, Advocates Gayatri Nandwasi and Mudita Sharda
