'His Trip history contradicts allegations': Mumbai Court Grants Bail To Zomato Delivery Executive Booked Under POCSO Act

Judge Kalpana K. Patil of a Special Court in Mumbai, has recently granted bail to a delivery executive who was booked for sexual assault and sexual harassment under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The delivery executive was granted bail based on the trip history which showed that he was not present in the said area when the alleged offence was committed.

The delivery executive was booked under Section 354 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act after a complaint was made by the mother of the 13-year-old victim. According to the complaint, the parents of the victim had gone out for work. When the mother came back at 9 PM, the victim, who is deaf, through sign language told her that someone had kissed her in the lane when she was returning back from the grocery shop.

When the informant asked for details of that person, the victim took the informant to the house of the applicant. The informant then asked the sister of the applicant if he had kissed her daughter, to which the sister of the applicant refused. Subsequently, when the applicant returned back, the victim pointed at him and told her mother in sign language that the applicant had kissed her. The informant then filed a report to the police station.

The applicant argued that he was innocent and was falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case. He informed the court that the informant's family members and the applicant's family members were frequently quarreling with each other and for taking revenge for the same, the victim’s family falsely implicated him. 

He argued that at the date of the incident he was not present and had gone to deliver the food items for Zomato. He said that he had not done any ill act as alleged by the complainant and her minor daughter. Further, it was also submitted that he is the only earning member of his family, and if the applicant continues to be in jail then, it will ruin his further life and will affect his job and society.

The prosecution argued that if the accused is released on bail there are chances of pressurizing prosecution witnesses.

After perusal of the records and the evidence, the judge said that the applicant was not present in the area where the incident took place and was delivering food items when the said incident was committed.

“Documents filed on record show that accused was out for his work as delivery boy continuously from 7.39 p.m. to 2.45 a.m. however, as per prosecution case at about 9.00 p.m. informant took victim to the house of accused and after sometime he came there and at that time victim pointed out accused.  These allegations appear contradictory to the documents filed on record by the accused in support of his bail application. Police have not submitted the investigation papers and police report is cryptic.”

The court while granting bail to the delivery executive said that considering the allegation levied, if the applicant is released on bail by imposing strict conditions, preventing him from approaching the victim and other prosecution witnesses, there will not be any interference in the investigation and prosecution evidence.