On 31st August, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while rejecting a bail petition, held that where the accused is a man of means and is charged under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act where the punishment will be sentenced to an imprisonment which will not be less than 20 years but which may extend upto imprisonment for life, the petitioner influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The court also observed that there are chances that the accused looking at the severity of punishments, will try to abscond or jump the bail.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought bail for offences under Section 366A, 372, 376, 120B, 506 and 34 IPC. The facts of the case are that the prosecutrix, who is a girl aged about 16/17 years was forced into prostitution by her own aunt i.e. accused/Suman, who was working in a Spa which was run by accused/Poonam, wife of the petitioner. The prosecutrix was sent to various customers in the Spa and also to persons in various hotels. The Spa was taken on rent/lease deed in the name of the Petitioner.
Contention of the petitioner:
Mr. Joginder Tuli, learned counsel for the Petitioner, made the following contention:
- It was submitted that the petitioner was unaware of what was happening in the Spa.
- It was further submitted that the lease deed had already expired and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be the tenant.
Contention of the Respondent:
Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State, argued that material on record shows i.e. the CCTV footage obtained from the premises shows that the petitioner was regularly visiting the Spa. Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of the activities of his own wife and that the petitioner was unaware that the girl aged 16/17 years was forced into prostitution and she was being physically exploited in the Spa.
Observation and judgment of the court:
The following contention has been made by the hon’ble bench of the court:
- Looking at the age of the prosecutrix and the fact that the petitioner is a man of means, the chances of the petitioner influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.
- There are chances of the petitioner tampering with evidence and also looking at the severity of punishments, the chances of the petitioner absconding or jumping the bail also cannot be ruled out.
- It cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware of the activities of his wife, rather material on record shows that the petitioner was in constant touch with his wife and was a regular visitor to the Spa and, therefore, it can be reasonably presumed at this stage that the petitioner was fully aware of the activities of his wife in the Spa.
In the light of the above, the court denied granting of bail to the petitioner.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
