Delhi High Court: While observing that, rape is an offence which not only violates the physical body of the survivor but is also capable of inflicting trauma on the mental psyche which can end up persisting for years, Subramonium Prasad, J., keeping in mind the nature of the offence, expressed that it inhabits a duty to consider such matters with utmost care.
Instant applications were filed for grant of bail to the petitioners in FIR registered under Sections 376, 376D, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Background
Prosecutrix was a minor when she was first assaulted by Suraj, she further alleged that a video had been shot and the prosecutrix was constantly threatened that if she did not agree with the demands of Suraj, the video would be circulated.
Analysis, Law and Decision
Purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat minors as a class by itself and to treat them separately so that an attempt to sexual assault or harass or molest or abuse the minor entails graver and stricter consequences. The ultimate purpose of this law is the paramount well-being of the child and to protect minors from flagrant violence inflicted on them.
Question for Consideration
Whether the liberty of the petitioner can be dispensed with, in light of the continuing nature of the heinous act?
It was noted that the petitioner’s name was mentioned both in the FIR as well as Section 164 statement by the prosecutrix before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Important factors while deciding a bail application are:
i. Whether there is a prima facie reasonable ground that the accused has committed the offence.
ii. Nature and gravity of the accusation
iii. Severity of punishment in the event of conviction
iv. Danger of absconsion of the accused.
v. Reasonable apprehension that witnesses may be influenced or evidence may be tampered with
vi. The likelihood of the offence being repeated.
vii. The danger of justice or processes thereof being stifled by grant of bail.
It was noted from a reading of the statements under Section 164 CrPC that Suraj first raped the prosecutrix and he made a video of the incident, and on the next day four of his friends i.e. Atul (petitioner herein), Sachin, Anurag and Rohit came to Inderpuri forest and Suraj started showing the video to the prosecutrix and said that if the prosecutrix did not agree with his demands, he would upload the video on the internet and after that she was constantly threatened.
Prosecutrix, even added that out of 6 people who rape her, she could name 5 and identify the 6th one, though she does not remember his name.
High Court noted that the prosecutrix was consistently traumatized since she was 13 years of age till, she attained 16 years of age and during the said time she got pregnant as well.
Charges against the accused were framed including the petitioners herein for offences under Sections 376(2), 376(D), 506(ii) read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Hence, petitioners were accused of a very serious offence and the fact that they can threaten the prosecutrix could not be ruled out.
High Court held that the bail could not be granted till the examination of prosecutrix was not conducted.
Considering the fact that the petitioners are youngsters, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and examine the prosecutrix within a period of six months from today.
In view of the above observations, the bail applications were dismissed. [Suraj v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5263, decided on 10-12-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
Bail Appln. 2542 of 2021:
For Petitioner: Rajpal Kasana, Advocate
For Respondent: Neelam Sharma, APP for the State with SI Sandeep, PS Mahrauli.
Neha Mathen, Advocate for the prosecutrix
Bail Appln. 3082 of 2021:
For Petitioner: Amit Kumar and Dinesh Kumar and Rohit Yadav, Advocates
For Respondent: Neelam Sharma, APP for the State with SI Sandeep, PS Mahrauli.
Neha Mathen, Advocate for the prosecutrix