By Shazia Siddiqui 

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a father accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), amidst contentious familial circumstances. The case unfolded against a backdrop of marital discord between the accused and his wife, leading to allegations of grave offenses by their 17-year-old daughter.

Initially charged under IPC sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354B (use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 506(II) (criminal intimidation), and POCSO Section 10, the accused vehemently denied the accusations. He argued that the allegations were fabricated, arising from a matrimonial dispute, and pointed to statements made by the victim herself during medical examinations, where she asserted his innocence.

Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the case, noted the delicate nature of the allegations and the potential social repercussions for the accused, particularly as he was the father of the victim. The court acknowledged the societal stigma attached to such allegations, stating, “The allegations like in the present case are of such nature when put to the accused, especially when he happens to be the father of the victim, that he would be inevitably looked down upon by society and it would have far-reaching social consequences.”

The court scrutinized the timing of the FIR, which was filed four days after the alleged incident, and highlighted discrepancies in the victim’s statements. It noted that crucial details, such as allegations of touching private parts and attempts to disrobe, were not initially mentioned to the police or documented in medical records on the day of the incident. This observation underscored the importance of scrutinizing the consistency and timing of allegations in cases where familial disputes may influence legal proceedings.

Addressing the statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO, which outlines that certain acts are presumed to be against the victim’s will unless proven otherwise, the court emphasized its discretionary powers in granting bail. It remarked, “Merely because Section 29 of the Act provides for a statutory presumption, the same does not bind the Courts to accept the prosecution version as gospel truth.” This statement highlighted the court’s commitment to impartiality and its duty to evaluate evidence meticulously before arriving at a decision.

The judgment underscored the dual purposes of custodial interrogation: aiding investigation without punitive intent. The court stressed, “It is not in doubt that an order for pre-arrest bail cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused to use the same as a shield.” This balanced approach aimed to uphold the integrity of legal proceedings while safeguarding the accused from undue hardship and social condemnation pending trial.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s decision to grant pre-arrest bail reflected its commitment to due process and fairness, even in emotionally charged cases involving serious allegations under POCSO. The ruling affirmed the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted with sensitivity and impartiality. By acknowledging the complexities of familial discord and societal perceptions, the court set a precedent for nuanced consideration of evidence and circumstances in similar cases.

Case Title: Sanjay Khatri v. State of NCT of Delhi

Click here to read/Download the judgement