MISS M (MINOR) Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner/complainant assailing the order dated 19/08/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-06, Special Court (POCSO), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 274/19, whereby respondent No. 2/accused was released on regular bail in FIR No. 127/2019 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC and Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act at P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Delhi.

(2.) Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the bail has been granted to respondent No. 2 on extraneous reasons. He further submitted that the child victim had alleged that after committing the offence, respondent No. 2 had threatened her not to report the incident to the police and also gave her life threat. It was also submitted that the mother of the child victim is yet to be examined. Learned counsel contended that the bail applications filed by respondent No. 2 were earlier dismissed twice by the concerned Court on 23/05/2019 and 13/08/2019 and a third bail application came to be filed on 18.08.2020, which was listed for the first time on 19/08/2020, on which date, respondent No. 2 was granted regular bail. He also assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the same was passed in violation of Practice Directions No. 67/Rules/DHC, issued by this Court on 24.09.2019 in compliance of the mandate of the amended Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. which came into effect on 21/04/2018, as well as Sec. 40 of the POCSO Act. It was submitted that at the time of hearing of the bail application, though the petitioner 's mother joined the V.C. proceedings alongwith the Investigating Officer, however, he, being the petitioner 's counsel, could not join due to technical issues. In this regard, messages were sent and calls were made to the Reader of the concerned Court. On the same day, at 4:15 p.m., an email was also sent to the Reader requesting to place the information contained therein before the concerned Court and seeking necessary directions. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Reena Jha and Another v. Union of India and Others reported as 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1389 and Miss G. (Minor) Thr. her v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported as 2020 SCC OnLine Del 629.

(3.) Mr. Jaan Mohd., learned counsel for the accused/respondent No.2, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that respondent No. 2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that respondent No. 2 is around 72 years of age and he has remained in custody since 20/04/2019 to 19/08/2020, when he was directed to be released on bail by the impugned order. Lastly, it was submitted that the child victim as well as the concerned doctor have already been examined.