In a POCSO Act matter where the orders of the Trial Court raised serious issues of sensitivity regarding victims of sexual violence, the Delhi High Court has observed that the exemption requests of victims of sexual violence cannot be treated at par with requests of hardened criminals.

The applicants approached the High Court seeking bail in a case registered under Section 123, 70(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 6, 17 of the POCSO Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia said, “One has to be conscious of the intersectionality of a girl child who has undergone trauma of sexual violence. Such a victim, on being summoned by court to depose and virtually relive the trauma, is bound to get jitters and consequences like loose motions and fever etc, caused by nervousness and agony. This is not something unexpected for which a trial court, that too the one specially constituted to deal with such offences, would venture into exercise of verification on the very first instance. Exemption requests of victims of sexual violence cannot be treated at par with such requests of hardened criminals.”

Advocate Neha Singh represented the Peititoner while APP Laksh Khanna represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged in this case that one Prince administered the prosecutrix some intoxicating liquid and thereafter, she was raped by Prince and accused Sonu. So far as the accused Ashlok is concerned, the allegation was that he was present when the intoxicating liquid was administered and after the prosecutrix lost consciousness, he went out of the room, leaving the prosecutrix behind with Sonu and Prince.

Arguments

It was the case of the applicants that the prosecutrix was deliberately delaying the proceedings.

Reasoning

Referring to the earlier orders, the Bench said, “Those two orders raise serious issues of sensitivity expected from the courts specially constituted to deal with victims of sexual violence.”

It was noticed that on March 18, 2025, the prosecutrix did not appear before the trial court despite service of summons and her counsel explained that it was on account of loose motions and fever. The Bench also noted that the applicants had placed before the trial court a copy of the order

of the predecessor bench directing the trial to be expedited. The trial court had observed that since no medical document had been filed, the illness of the prosecutrix was required to be verified. As such, the trial court directed the IO/SHO concerned to verify the medical condition of the prosecutrix and adjourned the matter to the next day.

An exemption application was filed on behalf of the prosecutrix on the grounds of fever and loose motions, for which she had been taking treatment at home under the supervision of a local doctor. The Bench also said, “Apart from what is noted above, the orders dated 18.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 record detailed adverse observations against conduct of learned counsel for prosecutrix.”

“Sensitivity while dealing with children who are victims of sexual violence is the most important facet of such specially constituted courts”, the Bench held. It was further noticed that it was disclosed by the counsel of the prosecutrix, that on the night of March 18, a male constable went to the house of the prosecutrix, though the directions of the trial court were to the IO/SHO.

“In this regard, the concerned ACP shall submit a detailed report by the next date. I also strongly deprecate that despite seriousness of the matter, neither the IO SI Ritu nor the SHO concerned has bothered to appear today”, the Bench held while relisting the matter on April 22, 2025.

Cause Title: Ashlok & Ors. v. the State Govt. Of NCT of Delhi (Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 3900/2024)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Neha Singh, Rahul Vats, Rahul Kumar, Saurabh Singh

Respondent: APP Laksh Khanna, Inspector Manoj from PS Shalimar Bagh Ms. Advocate Bahuli Sharma

Click here to read/download Order:







Delhi High CourtJustice Girish Kathpalia

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.