Facts
The accused/applicant was arrested following a report by SI Divya Yadav on 12.02.2024, alleging that the applicant had detained the prosecutrix (a domestic help) at his house and raped her for 15-20 days
Source reference: p.2, para. 4The prosecutrix, aged between 16-18 years per the ossification report, refused medical examination
Source reference: p.2, para. 4During subsequent trial proceedings, the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution’s case
Source reference: p.2, para. 5; p.3, para. 6Despite multiple notices and repeated information from the Investigating Officer, the prosecutrix failed to appear before the High Court for over one and a half years to oppose the bail application
Source reference: p.1, para. 2; p.2, para. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the prosecutrix’s hostile testimony and her refusal to undergo medical examination
Source reference: p.2, para. 5; p.3, para. 72. Whether the continued detention of the applicant is justified when the prosecutrix has repeatedly failed to appear before the Court to oppose the application
Source reference: p.2, para. 3; p.3, para. 8Law Applied
The Court applied the principles governing the grant of regular bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS), specifically in the context of offences under Sections 370, 370A, 376 of the IPC and Sections 6 and 21 of the POCSO Act
Source reference: p.1, para. 1The court relied on the evidentiary significance of a prosecutrix's testimony and medical evidence (or lack thereof) in sexual assault cases, alongside the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception when the primary witnesses do not support the prosecution's allegations
Source reference: p.3, para. 7-8Reasoning
The Court observed that the investigation originated in an "unusual" manner through a report by a Sub-Inspector rather than the victim directly
Source reference: p.3, para. 7Crucially, the Court noted that the prosecutrix had turned hostile during her testimony and had refused medical examination, which weakened the forensic foundation of the charges
Source reference: p.2, para. 4-6Furthermore, the Court interpreted the prosecutrix's persistent absence from the bail hearings, despite being informed by the IO, as an indication that she did not intend to oppose the relief
Source reference: p.2, para. 3While the State pointed out that the applicant was involved in two other cases (including one under the Child Labour Act), the Court noted that he was already on bail in those matters
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 10Consequently, the Court found no justification to further curtail the applicant’s liberty
Source reference: p.3, para. 8Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative and allowed the bail application. The Court held that given the lack of support from the prosecutrix and the procedural history, the applicant deserved to be released
The applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
Source reference: p.3, para. 8The Jail Superintendent was directed to be informed immediately
Source reference: p.3, para. 9Original Court PDF
Rakesh Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) BAIL APPLN. 4049/2024
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in