The Delhi High Court recently cancelled the bail granted to a 60-year-old man accused of rape of a 13-year-old girl..Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though the courts ordinarily do not interfere with orders granting bail, releasing the accused on bail in this case will have a deleterious effect on the society.“No doubt, Courts ordinarily do not interfere with orders granting bail but as laid down by the Apex Court, when basic requirements necessary for grant of bail are completely ignored by the Trial Court, the High Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. This Court is of the opinion that granting bail to such offenders will have a deleterious effect on the society and will actually run contrary to the purpose for which POCSO Act was enacted,” the Court observed..The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the father of the victim challenging the trial court order of August 27, 2022, granting bail to the accused.It was alleged that starting from January 10, 2019, the accused would take the minor girl to a bathroom in a building and remove her clothes, insert his fingers in her vagina and apply his mouth on her vagina and her breast.On October 9, 2019, when the accused had taken the victim to a bathroom in a building, he was spotted by a person and the victim was rescued.The accused was booked under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act)..After considering the case, the High Court said that the testimony of the prosecutrix categorically pointed out that a case under Section 3 of the POCSO Act was prima facie made out against the accused and the trial court had not taken into account the testimony of the prosecutrix while granting bail.“There is a prima facie and reasonable ground to believe that Respondent No.2 has committed a heinous offence of penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl,” the High Court stated. .Advocates Navneet R and Roopali Lakhotia appeared for the victim’s father.Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Tarang Srivastava appeared for the State.Accused was represented by advocates Dinesh Mudgil, Anmol Gupta, Bhairabi Das, Sanjana Sharma, Namrata Dua, Nagma, Swati, Vineet Bahl, Abhishek, Sunny Paw, Prashant Dahiya, Abhinav Bhatnagar and Ankit Malhotra. .[Read Order]
The Delhi High Court recently cancelled the bail granted to a 60-year-old man accused of rape of a 13-year-old girl..Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though the courts ordinarily do not interfere with orders granting bail, releasing the accused on bail in this case will have a deleterious effect on the society.“No doubt, Courts ordinarily do not interfere with orders granting bail but as laid down by the Apex Court, when basic requirements necessary for grant of bail are completely ignored by the Trial Court, the High Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. This Court is of the opinion that granting bail to such offenders will have a deleterious effect on the society and will actually run contrary to the purpose for which POCSO Act was enacted,” the Court observed..The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the father of the victim challenging the trial court order of August 27, 2022, granting bail to the accused.It was alleged that starting from January 10, 2019, the accused would take the minor girl to a bathroom in a building and remove her clothes, insert his fingers in her vagina and apply his mouth on her vagina and her breast.On October 9, 2019, when the accused had taken the victim to a bathroom in a building, he was spotted by a person and the victim was rescued.The accused was booked under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act)..After considering the case, the High Court said that the testimony of the prosecutrix categorically pointed out that a case under Section 3 of the POCSO Act was prima facie made out against the accused and the trial court had not taken into account the testimony of the prosecutrix while granting bail.“There is a prima facie and reasonable ground to believe that Respondent No.2 has committed a heinous offence of penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl,” the High Court stated. .Advocates Navneet R and Roopali Lakhotia appeared for the victim’s father.Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Tarang Srivastava appeared for the State.Accused was represented by advocates Dinesh Mudgil, Anmol Gupta, Bhairabi Das, Sanjana Sharma, Namrata Dua, Nagma, Swati, Vineet Bahl, Abhishek, Sunny Paw, Prashant Dahiya, Abhinav Bhatnagar and Ankit Malhotra. .[Read Order]
