Delhi High Court
Upendra Kumar vs State on 18 August, 2017
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1504/2017 & Crl.M 1428/2017
UPENDRA KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Udayan Jain, Advocate.
Versus
STATE ....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State with
W/SI Chanchal from Police Station- Mayur
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 18.08.2017
1. By this present application filed under Section 438 of Cr. P.C., the
petitioner is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 248/2017
under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act
registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar Phase-I.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the FIR are that on 08.07.17 one
of the accused Yogender Kumar took a minor victim aged 4 years
to the terrace of his house and sexually assaulted her by removing
her underwear and inserting a wooden stick in her private part. The
petitioner who is the real brother of Yogender Kumar had abetted
the above offence by witnessing it as well as concealing the facts.
3. Vide order dated 14.11.2017, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge rejected the application of anticipatory bail observing that
the present case is a serious matter and the appellant had absconded
and avoided his arrest and thereby no ground existed to grant him
anticipatory bail application.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
is not involved in the said offence and that he has been falsely
implicated. His contention was based on the fact that the mother of
the victim is on inimical terms with the petitioner's family. He
further submitted that on the basis of averments of the alleged FIR,
no offence under Section 376 IPC or Section 6 of POCSO is made
out against the petitioner and that the minor victim had been
tutored to falsely allege that the petitioner had come on the spot
and left after witnessing the above offence. To substantiate his
arguments, learned counsel relied upon the case of Gurbaksh
Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632.
5. Per Contra, the learned APP appearing for the State, strongly
opposed the present bail application and argued that the allegations
levelled in the present case are serious in nature. The prosecutrix
had been physically abused by the main accused Yogendra Kumar.
There are specific allegations against the petitioner that he
witnessed as well as concealed the entire incident.
6. It was further submitted that the statements of the child victim
recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.PC corroborated
the facts of the FIR. Moreover it was revealed by her statements
that all the facts were known to the petitioner/Accused and he had
informed the entire incident to his sister Deepika however both of
them had deliberately tried to conceal the facts as well as threaten
the victim thereby abetting the offence. Therefore Sections 17 and
21 of POCSO as well as Section 506 of IPC were also added.
7. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the role
attributed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion
that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Application is accordingly dismissed. The pending interim bail
application No. 1428 of 2017 also stands disposed of.
8. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present bail application shall not have any bearing
on the merits of the case during trial. With the aforesaid directions,
the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of.
(SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL)
AUGUST 18 , 2017
gr//
