Finding that the petitioner had exploited the victim sexually as well as financially, the Delhi High Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner, based on the specific allegations that the petitioner, despite being a married man with two children, had engaged in a physical relationship with the minor victim and had taken money from her. Due to the serious nature of these allegations, the High Court determined that there were no grounds to grant bail.

In the case at hand, the petitioner had filed an application seeking regular bail in a case involving Sections 354/376/384/506/509/417/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the specific allegations of taking money and establishing physical relations with the victim who was a minor girl despite the petitioner being a married man having two children, no ground for bail is made out”.

Advocate Virender Verma appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Amit Ahlawat appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, the case revolved around an FIR filed by the prosecutrix, who had alleged that the petitioner (Pappu Kumar Thakur) had engaged in wrongful acts and sexually exploited her when she was a minor at the age of 13. She claimed that this exploitation had persisted for a decade, during which the petitioner had blackmailed her, physically abused her, subjected her to beatings, and threatened to make her compromising photos public. Furthermore, he had sent some of these photos to her workplace. Despite the prosecutrix marrying the petitioner at some point, he continued to threaten, exploit, and abuse her. Moreover, the petitioner had also transferred money from the prosecutrix's account into his own, misused her credit card, and failed to settle the credit card bills. It was additionally alleged that the petitioner was already married and had two children, but he had falsely assured the prosecutrix that he had divorced his first wife.

After considering the submission, the Bench took note of the petitioner's counsel's argument that there was a delay of approximately five months in registering the FIR.

However, the Bench pointed out that it was the responsibility of the police officials to promptly register the FIR, and therefore, in these circumstances, the victim could not be held at fault for the delayed registration of the FIR.

The High Court therefore concluded that the allegations against the petitioner were grave and of a serious nature, and as a result, denied the bail application.

Cause Title: Pappu Kumar Thakur v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 6686]

Click here to read/ download the Order