The Delhi High Court denied bail to Premoday Khakha and his wife in a minor rape case, affirming the comprehensive investigation. The couple claimed incomplete police inquiry, but the court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing timely chargesheet filing. The case involves allegations of repeated rape of a 16-year-old girl, leading to the High Court’s proactive involvement to safeguard the victim’s identity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: The Delhi High Court, on Monday, dismissed the plea for statutory bail from Premoday Khakha, a suspended officer of the Delhi government’s Women and Child Development Department, and his wife Seema Rani. The court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the investigation had been thorough, and there was “no infirmity” in the trial court order.
In a significant development, the court highlighted-
“The charge sheet was filed on October 11, 2023. Cognizance was taken by the trial court on November 8, 2023. Undoubtedly, a substantial investigation has been completed. The court finds no infirmity in the trial court order refusing default bail.”
ALSO READ: IFS Officer Prabin Lal Agarwal Suspended for Naming Lion Pair ‘Akbar and Sita’
The couple had sought statutory bail, contending that the Delhi Police had failed to conclude the investigation within the stipulated time. The charges against Premoday Khakha include allegations of raping a minor girl multiple times between November 2020 and January 2021. The victim, who stayed at the accused’s residence, was reportedly impregnated, and Seema Rani, also an accused, allegedly provided her with medication to terminate the pregnancy.
The arrests were made on August 2, 2023, after the victim recorded her statement before a magistrate at a hospital. The case involves charges under the POCSO Act and IPC sections 376(2)(f), 509, 506, 323, 313, and 120B.
Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC –
Committing rape against a woman while holding a position of trust, authority, or being in a relationship as a relative, guardian, or teacher.
Section 509 of The IPC –
Anyone intentionally trying to insult the modesty of a woman by uttering words, making sounds or gestures, or displaying objects with the intent that the woman hears or sees them, or by intruding upon her privacy, can be punished with simple imprisonment for up to three years and a fine.
Section 506 of the IPC-
The person who commits the offense of criminal intimidation may face punishment, including imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. If the threat involves causing death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or committing an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for up to seven years, or if it involves imputing unchastity to a woman, the punishment can be imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine, or both.
ALSO READ: Data Protection | High Court Steps In to Protect WhatsApp Privacy Amidst Details Request
Section 323 of the IPC-
A person who intentionally causes harm, except in cases covered by Section 334, may be subjected to punishment. The penalty may include imprisonment, which could extend up to one year, a fine that may go up to one thousand rupees, or both.
Section 313 of the IPC-
A person committing the offense described in the previous section without the woman’s consent, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not, may be subject to punishment. The penalty can include imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either type for a period of up to ten years, and the individual may also be liable to pay a fine.
Section 120B of the IPC-
If a person is involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more, and there is no explicit provision in the legal code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, that person shall be punished as if they had abetted the offense.For those involved in a criminal conspiracy not related to an offense punishable as mentioned above, the punishment may involve imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine, or both.
Despite the couple’s assertion that the investigation was incomplete, the court pointed out that the chargesheet was timely filed, and cognizance was duly taken. Justice Singh remarked on the absence of medical evidence provided by Khakha and the fact that two co-accused were still at large.
Premoday Khakha, serving as the Assistant Director in the Women and Child Development Department, was arrested on August 21, 2023, and subsequently suspended from his position. Seema Rani, accused of aiding and abetting in the crime, was also taken into custody.
The heinous acts came to light when the victim disclosed the incidents to a therapist at St Stephen’s Hospital in Delhi, where she was receiving treatment for panic attacks. Referring to Khakha as ‘mama’ (uncle), the girl revealed the alleged incidents that occurred after the death of her father between November 2020 and January 2021.
The Delhi High Court had earlier taken Suo moto cognizance of the case on August 28, 2023, expressing concerns about safeguarding the identity of the victim. The recent decision to deny statutory bail reinforces the gravity of the charges and the need for a comprehensive investigation.