Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act  ||  Meghalaya High Court: In a Sacred Relationship, Husband is the Property of the Wife and Vice Versa  ||  Kar HC: Disciplinary Authority Must Look Into Past Conduct of Workman While Passing Dismissal Order  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Facts Indicating Special Knowledge Must be Estd. by Prosecution to Shift Burden of Proof  ||  Ker. HC: Independent Evidence of Accomplice Sufficient in Itself to Sustain Conviction    

Pankaj Kumar Vs. The State - (High Court of Delhi) (10 May 2021)

In cases pertaining to heinous offences, especially those of non-bailable offences, bails should be granted in a judicious manner

MANU/DE/0856/2021

Criminal

The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner seeking bail in FIR under Sections 323, 341 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 8 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), registered at police station, Delhi.

Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in present case and was arrested from his house without any cause and reason and since then he is in judicial custody. Further submitted that, a bare perusal of FIR itself reveals that, Petitioner has been taken into custody by the Police solely on the figment of imagination of the complainant and neither it is the case of complainant nor of the prosecution that, Petitioner had tried to touch private parts of prosecutrix or any body part with a sexual intent. Learned counsel next submitted that, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove, that the Petitioner had committed sexual assault on the complainant much less any other offences punishable under the India Penal Code (IPC).

The POCSO Act has been enacted to redress sexual offences against the children and Special Courts have been established for speedy trial of such cases. In the present case, since the complainant is a minor, provisions of POCSO Act have been invoked, which is a non-bailable offence. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has cautioned the Courts that, in cases pertaining to heinous offences, especially those of non-bailable offences, bails should be granted in a judicious manner.

At the stage of grant of bail, present Court is not required to analyse the merits of the prosecution case, but has to ensure that if a person is in judicial custody, there has to be sufficient material/evidence in support of the allegations he has been charged with.

As per status report, the medical examination of victim was got conducted at Hospital, however no report/MLC has been placed on record. Despite directions of this Court, prosecution has failed to place on record the copy of statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Charge sheet in present case has been filed but charge is yet to be framed and trial will take substantial time. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, a case for bail is made out against the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the condition. The present petition is allowed.

Tags : FIR   BAIL   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved