The Delhi High Court has overturned a lower court’s decision to grant bail to a 60-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl. The case, registered under FIR No. 443/2019 at Police Station Kapashera, involved allegations of repeated sexual assaults by the accused, who was a neighbor of the victim. The father of the victim challenged the bail order dated August 27, 2022, issued by the trial court.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The case primarily revolved around the interpretation and application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, particularly Section 3, which defines penetrative sexual assault. The trial court had granted bail to the accused on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the criteria for penetrative sexual assault as defined under the POCSO Act. However, the Delhi High Court found this reasoning to be flawed.
Court’s Decision
Justice Subramonium Prasad presided over the case and delivered the judgment on August 2, 2024. The High Court critically analyzed the trial court’s decision and found several lapses in its reasoning. The court emphasized that the testimony of the victim, which clearly indicated penetrative sexual assault, was ignored by the trial court. The High Court noted that the trial court failed to consider the victim’s detailed statements, both in her initial complaint and her testimony in court, which described the accused’s actions that fell under the definition of penetrative sexual assault.
Key Observations by the Court
Justice Prasad made several important observations in the judgment:
1. Victim’s Testimony: “The testimony of the Prosecutrix categorically points out that a case under Section 3 of the POCSO Act is prima facie made out against Respondent No. 2 herein. The Trial Court has not taken into account the testimony of the Prosecutrix in Court while granting bail to the Respondent No. 2 herein/accused.”
2. Legal Presumptions: “In the facts of this case, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is attracted. Section 29 of the POCSO Act reads as under: ‘Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.'”
3. Granting Bail: “Granting bail to such offenders will have a deleterious effect on the society and will actually run contrary to the purpose for which POCSO Act was enacted.”
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4830/2022 & CRL.M.A. 19399/2022
– Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: The father of the victim, represented by Advocates Mr. Navneet R. and Ms. Roopali Lakhotia.
– Respondents: The State NCT of Delhi, represented by Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP, and the accused, represented by a team of advocates including Mr. Dinesh Mudgil and Mr. Anmol Gupta, among others.
