Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent development, the Delhi High Court granted bail to a man accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 along with Sections 323/354 IPC, 1860. The FIR was allegedly filed by the complainant due to personal enmity between the parties.

The Delhi High Court while dealing with the facts of the case observed that the perusal of the FIR indicated that allegedly on the date of the incident, two persons came to the house of the prosecutrix and called her mother, the mother of the prosecutrix objected to the same, and thereafter those two persons started beating the mother of the prosecutrix. The complainant specifically stated that one of them was one Ramesh and she did not know the name of the other person. It had further been stated in the complaint that one of them was wearing a white T-shirt. It was further alleged that when the complainant tried to intervene, the person wearing the white shirt molested her and pressed her breasts and also gave a fist blow on her eyes. The complainant also alleged that they also gave beatings to her father. 

The counsel for the petitioner, Adv Swaty Singh Malik submitted that the present case was a dispute between two families and the present FIR had been lodged at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix only to attribute the provisions of the POCSO Act 2012. It was further contended that the accused was in custody since 08.04.2022 and for that the chargesheet had already been filed. It was also pointed out that the accused was 34 years of age and was yet to settle down in the family and that the trial will take a long time and therefore the petitioner might be admitted to bail.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that it was a matter of record that the accused was in custody since 08.04.2023 and there was nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioner was involved in any other case. Furthermore, the court observed that the jurisprudence regarding the grant of bail is very well settled that the detention period during the trial cannot be taken as a punitive measure.

Court while relying on the principles laid down regarding the grant of bail in serious offense cases in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,2004 SCC 7 528 granted regular bail to the accused.

The principles regarding the grant of bail in serious offense cases have been dealt with in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,2004 SCC 7 528 wherein it was inter-alia held that:

"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of.the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prina jacie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offense. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of Supporting evidence

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.”

The Delhi High Court while admitting the accused on bail observed and concluded that in the present case though the allegations were serious in nature, it was a matter of record that the accused had not been named in the FIR and the charge-sheet had already been filed and without making any comments on the merits of the case and taking into account the period of detention and the allegations in the complaint, the petitioner/accused was admitted to court bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount.

Case Title: G ARUN Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI BAIL APPLN 2048/2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Swaty Singh Malik and Mr. Rohan Kumar, Advs.