Delhi High Court
Jaffar Khan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 6 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 01st November, 2017
Order pronounced on 06thNovember, 2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 1966/2017
JAFFAR KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Srivastav, Advocate.
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State with
SI Amit Kumar, PS-I.P. Estate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. This is the second application under Section 439 Cr.PC for
grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 460/2014 under Section
376(i) IPC and Sections 6/10 of Prevention of Children Sexual
Offences Act (POCSO) registered at Police Station - IP Estate.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present application
are that on 24.10.2014, the victim girl, aged about 15 years who
is mentally challenged went to G. B. Pant Hospital along with her
father/complainant to obtain her handicap certificate; that at B-
Block Room No. 29, they met a nurse who informed them that for
handicap certificate, they have to show documents to Dr. Mishra;
that the complainant left to meet Dr. Mishra leaving his daughter
sitting on the bench kept in Room No. 29; that after sometime, he
returned to Room No. 29, but did not find her daughter on the
bench but found in a chair lying in the same room and a boy,
BAIL APPLN. 1966/2017 Page 1 of 3
whose name was later revealed Jafar was there and the zip of his
pant was opened and his private part was out and her daughter's
pant belt was also opened; that the complainant heard the
applicant/Jafar saying 'wash your mouth' and on enquiry he replied
that he did not do anything; that on 25.10.2014, the victim girl
disclosed the aforesaid facts to her mother; that thereafter the
complainant lodged the complaint and the applicant/Jafar was
arrested on 26.10.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the FIR is
antedated and antetimed; that the name of the applicant/petitioner
was appearing in the FIR though neither the complainant nor the
victim girl were known to him prior to the alleged incident; that the
investigating agency failed to trace the real culprit andthe
applicant/petitionerhas been made scapegoat; that material
witnesses including the victim girl and her parents have already
been examined in the present case and hence there is no
apprehension of influencing the witnesses or interfere with the
proceedings of the case; that the applicant/petitioner is in judicial
custody for the past three years and the trial will proceed at its own
pace, in these circumstances, applicant deserves to be admitted on
regular bail.
4. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail application
and contended that the nature of offence involved in the instant
case is heinous and grave, especially when the victim girl is a
special child; that the applicant/petitioner does not deserve any
leniency and present application may be dismissed.
BAIL APPLN. 1966/2017 Page 2 of 3
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged offence occurred on
24.10.2014 and the matter was reported to the police on the next
day i.e. 25.10.2014 by father of the child victim and the
applicant/petitioner was arrested on the next day
7. Perusal of the statement of the victim girl, who is a minor and
special child recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC and before the
Court, goes to show that she has attributed specific role to the
applicant/petitioner. She identified the applicant/petitioner
correctly and specifically stated that the applicant/petitioner had
sexually assaulted her which made him liable to be prosecuted
under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)
Act, 2012 is a special law to protect children from sexual abuse and
exploitation.
8. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances,
seriousness of the offence and the fact that the witnesses are yet to
be examined and there is apprehension of influencing the
witnesses, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused/petitioner
at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
9. Before parting with above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
NOVEMBER 06, 2017 / gr
