Aishwarya Rathore-
Published on August 03, 2021, at 6:22 PM
The Delhi High Court granted Anticipatory Bail to a woman booked under Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the provisions of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar stated, “Nothing is to be recovered from her, so no custodial interrogation is required. Co-accused who is stated to be the abettor has already been released on bail.”
The petitioner was booked under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act on the complaint of another woman, who alleged that the former had sexually assaulted her child on several occasions.
The complainant alleged that her estranged husband was having an affair with the petitioner, who would regularly visit her home and mistreat her child in front of her husband.
It was also revealed that the child had been medically examined throughout the investigation and recorded a statement in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in which he corroborated the contents of the complaint. According to records the child had been abused since he was three years old.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant’s husband, who was the co-accused in the case, had been granted Anticipatory Bail.
The State through the prosecutor argued that the child was only six years old and could only reveal about the sexual assault in the month of September 2020. Thus, as a result the FIR got delayed.
The prosecutor called the woman as the main accused in the case, terming the crime “serious and grave.”
The Court said, “So both these documents which have come from the custody of the complainant are not found to be genuine documents in regard to the injury allegedly given to the child by the petitioner. The complainant is well advised not to engage herself in such type of endeavours in future and at this stage, I am not taking any harsh view against the complainant for preparing such medical records.”
Consequently, the Court granted her the benefit of pre-arrest bail directing her not to meet the child till the recording of the statement of the child and not to visit the place of the complainant and keep herself 3 KM away from the residence of the complainant.
Also Read: Madras HC: In POCSO Case, Victim Testimony is sufficient for Conviction