Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), observing that the allegations of repeated sexual assault on a minor were grave and serious. The Court underscored the nascent stage of the investigation, emphasizing the necessity of safeguarding evidence and preventing the accused from influencing witnesses. The Court found no merit in the accused’s arguments and upheld the prosecution’s concerns.
Facts
The FIR was filed on October 21, 2024, based on the allegations of a minor girl who claimed she was repeatedly assaulted by the accused. The incidents reportedly began in October 2023, shortly after the prosecutrix’s family moved into the accused’s neighborhood. The accused allegedly expressed his affection towards her and later coerced her into visiting his shop under threats to harm her father. During these visits, the prosecutrix claimed she was subjected to repeated sexual assaults, the last of which occurred on September 29, 2024. Fearing further harm, the prosecutrix eventually confided in her mother, leading to the filing of the FIR. Her age was confirmed to be 14 years through her school records.
Issues
- Whether the accused is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the grave allegations of repeated sexual assault.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the accused’s defense (including CCTV footage and alleged fabrication of allegations) affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The accused argued that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, diminishing the credibility of the allegations.
- It was contended that the prosecutrix’s claim regarding the last incident on September 29, 2024, was refuted by CCTV footage, which purportedly showed her visiting the shop with her sister and another child, leaving shortly after purchasing groceries.
- The accused alleged that the FIR was a misuse of legal processes, orchestrated by a third party for extortion. He claimed that the prosecutrix had earlier filed a false complaint and voluntarily withdrawn it.
- The accused pointed out discrepancies in the investigation and sought anticipatory bail on the grounds of his lack of prior criminal record and the fabrication of evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The prosecution highlighted the serious nature of the allegations, involving repeated sexual assaults on a minor. It noted that the prosecutrix had consistently maintained her account in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
- The prosecution argued that the investigation was in its early stages, and granting bail could allow the accused to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- The CCTV footage relied upon by the accused required forensic verification, and its authenticity could not be determined at this stage.
- It was also argued that the accused’s claim regarding prior complaints and withdrawals by the prosecutrix was unsubstantiated and contradicted by official records.
Analysis of the Law
The Court referred to principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, as outlined in relevant case law. It highlighted that courts must consider:
- The prima facie case against the accused.
- The nature of the offense.
- The potential punishment.
In cases involving allegations of sexual assault on minors, courts must prioritize the protection of victims and the integrity of investigations. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases where there is a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529, where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The precedent underscored the need for a cautious approach in such cases to ensure justice for the victim while maintaining the rights of the accused.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the allegations of repeated sexual assault on a minor were grave and supported by the prosecutrix’s consistent statements. It dismissed the accused’s reliance on prior complaints and settlements, finding no record to substantiate these claims. The CCTV footage, while relied upon by the accused, was yet to undergo forensic verification, and its authenticity could not be assumed.
The Court noted the prosecutrix’s vulnerability as a minor and the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. In light of the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the Court found no justification to grant anticipatory bail.
Conclusion
The High Court denied the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations, the vulnerability of the minor victim, and the need to ensure the integrity of the investigation. The Court reiterated that the dismissal of the bail application should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting victims of sexual assault, particularly minors, and maintaining the integrity of investigations. It serves as a reminder that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly in cases involving grave allegations, ensuring that justice is pursued without interference.
