Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the regular bail application filed by the accused in FIR No. 197/2024 registered under Sections 323, 328, 342, 354D, 363, 376, 506, 109, 34 IPC and Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act. Justice Girish Kathpalia directed that the accused be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Court also ordered that the accused shall not contact the prosecutrix or any of her relatives.
Facts
According to the prosecution:
The prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, was kidnapped by accused Vishnu from Delhi and taken to Calcutta, then to Mumbai.
In Mumbai, she stayed for one week in the house of co-accused Sanjay, where the present applicant and one Salman were also residing.
The prosecutrix alleged that Vishnu raped her daily during this time when the other men went out for work.
After briefly returning to Calcutta, Vishnu again came back to Sanjay’s house. One day, the prosecutrix escaped and was rescued by police from a bakery.
Issues
Whether the accused/applicant committed any offence warranting continued custody under the IPC and POCSO charges.
Whether the materials on record disclosed any specific or direct allegation of involvement against the applicant in the commission of sexual assault.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The learned counsel for the accused argued that there was no specific allegation against the accused in any statement made by the prosecutrix.
He relied on her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC to argue that the accused was being wrongly implicated and there was no evidence to justify his continued detention.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution, based on the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC), stated that the prosecutrix had alleged that the present accused also raped her.
The counsel for the prosecutrix pointed out that in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix stated that the accused, along with Sanjay and Salman, used to lock the room from outside, indicating their complicity in the acts committed by Vishnu.
Analysis of the Law
The Court carefully scrutinised the content and context of the three primary evidentiary records:
MLC: Mentioned that after Vishnu, “Sanjay, Ankit and Salman” also “made sexual relation with her”.
Section 164 CrPC statement: Did not name the applicant; the only reference was that the room’s door was locked from outside when the men left.
Section 161 CrPC statement: The prosecutrix referred to the applicant as “Bhaiya” (brother) and did not allege any direct or indirect act of sexual assault against him.
Precedent Analysis
No specific case law was cited in the judgment. However, the Court implicitly relied on the settled principle that bail should not be denied when no prima facie material establishes the applicant’s active involvement in the alleged offence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted:
The MLC reference was in the form of a narrative of past events and not corroborated in the detailed Section 164 CrPC statement, which was silent on any direct role of the applicant.
The Section 161 CrPC statement indicated a relationship of familiarity and even trust (“Bhaiya”), with no mention of any criminal act or complicity by the applicant.
The applicant had been in custody since 19.06.2024, and no fresh material emerged to support continued incarceration.
The Court concluded:
“I find no reason to deprive liberty to the accused/applicant any further.”
Conclusion
The Court granted regular bail to the accused, observing that neither the prosecutrix’s detailed statements nor the supporting materials established a clear role of the applicant in the alleged sexual offences. The bail was subject to furnishing a bond and surety, with a strict direction to refrain from contacting the prosecutrix or her relatives.
Implications
This order reinforces the principle that incarceration must not be extended in the absence of prima facie evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act and IPC. It also demonstrates judicial sensitivity to both the liberty of the accused and the reliability and consistency of statements made by victims.
