Nothing More Grave Than Child Being Abused By Her Own Father: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Bail Order In POCSO Case
The Court held that the bail order was perverse and unsustainable, having been granted without considering the gravity of allegations, statutory presumptions, and the stage of investigation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court set aside an order of a trial court granting bail to an accused father facing charges under the POCSO Act, holding that the bail order was arbitrary, unreasoned, and in disregard of the seriousness of the allegations.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the prosecutrix through her mother, challenging the grant of bail to the accused in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 377, 323, 376 IPC and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act.
A Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while deciding the matter, observed that “it is evident that the Ld. ASJ has failed to consider the material facts and the aspects and has granted Bail on erroneous and misplaced grounds. Clearly, Bail within 09 days of registration of the FIR in such a serious offence crime where the investigation was yet in progress, was completely misplaced.”
Advocate Gurmukh Singh Arora represented the petitioner, while Sanjeev Bhandari (ASC) and Advocate Shikhar Singh represented the respondents.
Background
The prosecutrix approached the High Court, through her mother, contending that the trial court had wrongly granted bail without examining material evidence, overlooking the statutory mandate under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, arguing that the trial court failed to consider the vulnerability of the prosecutrix, the ongoing nature of the investigation, and the gravity of the allegations.
Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court found that the order granting bail was based on irrelevant considerations such as delay in filing the complaint and absence of mention in parallel proceedings. It was observed that such grounds were wholly misplaced, given the gravity of the allegations.
The Bench underscored that “there cannot be anything more grave than a child being abused by her own father, who gave her birth and holds the pious duty and responsibility of ensuring her safety.” It held that the trial court had failed to apply the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.
Taking note of the allegations made by the prosecutrix of being compelled to indulge in watching obscene content, the Bench observed that "...prima facie, these allegations have been corroborated from the FSL Report of the mobile phone, which has confirmed about the obscene videos being present in the mobile phone."
While explaining the applicable legal principles, the Court highlighted that revocation of bail arises when the initial grant of bail itself is found to be perverse or arbitrary, while cancellation deals with subsequent events. In the present case, the bail order itself was held to be unsustainable.
The Bench, while cancelling the bail, noted that the investigation was still in progress when bail was granted, contrary to the trial court’s observation that it was complete. The Bench also took note of the forensic analysis of the accused’s phone, which revealed obscene material, corroborating the allegations.
Conclusion
Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the bail order as perverse and unsustainable in law. The bail bond and surety bond were cancelled, and the accused was directed to surrender before the trial court within seven days.
Cause Tile: XYZ vs The State (GNCT OF DELHI) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8184)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Gurmukh Singh Arora
Respondents: Sanjeev Bhandari (ASC) and Advocate Shikhar Singh.
