The Delhi High Court 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.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court revoked the bail previously granted to a 60-year-old man accused of raping a 13-year-old girl. Justice Subramonium Prasad highlighted the general principle that courts do not usually interfere with bail orders.
However, he emphasized that releasing the accused in this particular case would have a harmful impact on 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 decision came in response to a plea filed by the victim’s father, who challenged the trial court’s order from August 27, 2022, which had granted bail to the accused. The allegations against the accused stated that beginning on January 10, 2019, he would take the minor girl to a bathroom in a building, forcibly remove her clothes, and engage in sexual acts including inserting his fingers into her vagina and applying his mouth to her vagina and breasts.
On October 9, 2019, the accused was caught in the act by a bystander while he had the victim in a bathroom, leading to her rescue.
The accused was charged 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).
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court noted that the testimony of the prosecutrix clearly indicated a prima facie case under Section 3 of the POCSO Act against the accused. The trial court had overlooked this critical testimony when 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,” t
–he High Court stated.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rape
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
