Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20517 = 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 248
Decided on: 20.05.2025
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. R Krishnaamorthi, Adv., Mr. Jai Vardhan, Adv., Mr. Purushotam, Adv., Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Karl P. Rustomkhan, Adv., Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv., Mr. Udbhav Sinha, Adv., Ms. Kajal Dalal, AOR, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv., Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv., Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv., Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv., Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 354, 354B, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 10 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Regular bail – POCSO – Rape -- Appellant is presently seventy two years of age and has been in custody since 05.07.2024 -- Charges have not yet been framed – Contended that there are seventeen witness to be examined and the trial would inevitably be delayed – Bail allowed.
(Para 7-10)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Bail Application No. 3587/2024.
3. The appellant has been facing trial in connection with a crime registered pursuant to FIR No. 367 of 2024 dated 05.07.2024 lodged with Police Station Govindpuri, District South-East, Delhi in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 354B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [in short, “IPC”], and Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [in short, “POCSO”].
4. The application seeking regular bail having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 11.03.2025, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations made against the appellant herein are wholly false and frivolous. The appellant is presently seventy two years of age and has been in custody since 05.07.2024. The charges have not yet been framed and in the circumstances, the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant may be granted the relief of bail as there are seventeen witness to be examined and the trial would inevitably be delayed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel for second respondent-complainant in unison submitted that there is no merit in this appeal inasmuch as the allegations against the appellant herein are serious and they also include the offences under the POCSO Act. They, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be simply dismissed.
8. Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for regular bail is made out.
9. We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:
“The appellant shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court as early as possible and the Trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 367 of 2024 mentioned above.”
10. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.
11. The appellant shall not reside with the complainant and the victim.
12. Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the appellant.
13. With these observations, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
Appeal allowed.
********