Blog

It has been observed by the Supreme Court that paramount consideration is to be given to the wellbeing of a child whose mental psyche is vulnerable. It is well known that trauma suffered by a young girl child of 16 years of age is long lasting and it take years for a child to come out of that trauma as held by the High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad in the case of Anil Kumar v. State (BAIL APPLN. 3971/2021).

The brief facts leading to the present case are that an FIR was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix, who is 16 years of age. It is stated that the prosecutrix resides with her parents and she used to take Mathematics classes from the petitioner since 10th Standard. It is stated that on the first day of her offline class, the petitioner asked her to stay back to understand the concept taught on the previous day. He gave his notebook and went to take classes for 10th Standard. It is stated that when 10th Standard students left, the petitioner came to her to clear her doubts. He asked the prosecutrix about her 10th Standard marks and asked for a party. It is stated that when the prosecutrix packed her bag and was leaving, the petitioner stopped her and said that she was very cute and touched her cheek, closed the door and kissed her on her right cheek and then on the left. The prosecutrix was scared since she was alone, so she did not scream. She left but she was feeling extremely uncomfortable because of the manner in which the petitioner had hugged her three to four times as well as the manner in which he was talking to her. It is stated that she called her parents on her way home. Material on record reveals that after she went home, a PCR call was made and it was recorded vide DD Entry No. 49A. The Police reached the residence of the prosecutrix and met the prosecutrix along with her parents wherein her mother told the Police that the prosecutrix had been molested by the petitioner herein. It is stated that an NGO was called and the victim was counselled. Medical examination was conducted. A written complaint was handed over to the Police and the instant was registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar for offences under Section 354, 354A IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) was lodged. The petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e., 30.08.2021. The petitioner filed an application for grant of bail which was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge stating that a reading of the facts shows that an offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act is made out which is a more serious offence than the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant bail application.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments by the respective parties, the Hon’ble Court held, “Granting bail to the petitioner at this stage i.e., even before the charges are framed, will lead to defeating the very purpose and the object of the POCSO Act. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani