Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, in bail applications of three individuals accused of sexually assaulting a child opined that maintaining sensitivity while handling child victims of sexual violence remains the most crucial aspect of these specially designated courts.

The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held, “the predecessor bench directed expeditious trial in view of incarceration of the applicants. But that cannot be read in such a manner as to cause such a trauma on such a victim, as if it is she who was the aggressor. Sensitivity while dealing with children who are victims of sexual violence is the most important facet of such specially constituted courts”. 

Per the prosecution, the victim was allegedly administered an intoxicating substance by one of the accused individuals, following which she was sexually assaulted by them. The third accused was alleged to have been present during the administration of the intoxicant and subsequently left the room, latching the door from outside after the victim lost consciousness.

Additional Public Prosecutor Laksh Khanna, representing the State, argued that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate, as the accused resided in the same locality as the victim and could potentially influence or intimidate her. The court was urged to consider the bail applications only after the victim’s testimony.

However, Advocates Neha Singh and Rahul Kumar, representing the accused, argued that the victim was deliberately delaying the proceedings. 

The court examined the trial court’s observations regarding the victim’s absence. On March 18, 2025, the victim failed to appear despite being summoned. Her counsel explained that she was suffering from fever and loose motions, rendering her unable to testify. The trial court, citing the lack of medical documentation, directed the investigating officer (IO) and the Station House Officer (SHO) to verify her medical condition and issued a fresh summons for the next day.

On March 19, 2025, another exemption application was filed, citing continued illness. The IO reported that she had arranged for the victim’s medical examination at Haiderpur Janta Clinic on the previous day. The victim’s counsel sought ten more days for her to testify. The trial court's orders from these dates also contained critical remarks on the conduct of the victim’s counsel.

The court took a strong stance on the issue, emphasizing the need for sensitivity in handling victims of sexual violence, particularly minors. The court highlighted that “One has to be conscious of the intersectionality of a girl child who has undergone trauma of sexual violence. Such a victim, on being summoned by court to depose and virtually relive the trauma, is bound to get jitters and consequences like loose motions and fever etc, caused by nervousness and agony. This is not something unexpected for which a trial court, that too the one specially constituted to deal with such offences, would venture into exercise of verification on the very first instance”.

The court further criticized the approach taken by the trial court, stressing that expedited trials must not come at the cost of the victim’s well-being. It noted that treating the victim as an aggressor, even implicitly, was unacceptable. 

The court also condemned the alleged misconduct by law enforcement, as a male constable reportedly visited the victim’s residence on the night of March 18, despite court directions for the IO/SHO to handle the matter. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) was instructed to submit a detailed report regarding this incident by the next hearing.

Given these circumstances, the court scheduled the next hearing for April 22, 2025, deferring the bail pleas until after the victim’s testimony.

For Accused: Advocates Neha Singh,  Rahul Vats, Rahul Kumar and Saurabh Singh
For State:  Additional Public Prosecutor Laksh Khanna with Advocate Bahuli Sharma
Case Title: Ashlok v State (BAIL APPLN. 3900/2024)