Delhi High Court: Two bail applications were filed by the petitioners pertaining to FIR registered under Sections 123, 70(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). Girish Kathpalia, J., adjourned the matter for further hearing and criticized the Trial Court’s insensitivity in insisting on medical verification of the prosecutrix’s illness on her first non-appearance and emphasized the need for a victim-centric approach.
The allegations are serious, involving the administration of an intoxicating liquid to the prosecutrix by accused 1, followed by her alleged sexual assault by both accused. It was further alleged that accused 1 was present when the intoxicating liquid was administered, and after the prosecutrix lost consciousness, he exited the room, latching the door from outside.
The State opposed the bail applications, contending that the accused resides in the same vicinity as the prosecutrix and might intimidate her. The State submitted that it would be appropriate to consider the bail applications after the prosecutrix’s testimony. Conversely, the petitioners argued that the prosecutrix was deliberately delaying the trial. They relied on the Trial Court orders dated 18-03-2025 and 19-03-2025 to support their claim.
On 18-03-2025, the prosecutrix failed to appear in the Trial Court, citing illness, specifically fever and loose motions. Despite this, the Trial Court directed the Investigation Officer (IO) to verify her medical condition. The prosecutrix’s counsel objected to this verification, considering it unnecessary and insensitive given the nature of the case. On 19-03-2025, the prosecutrix filed an exemption application on the same grounds, stating she was under the supervision of a local doctor. The IO, however, reported that she was examined at Haiderpur Janta Clinic. The Trial Court’s adverse observations on the prosecutrix’s absence were challenged in the High Court.
The Court criticized the Trial Court’s handling of the situation and stated that the trauma and psychological distress a survivor of sexual violence might endure when summoned to testify. It acknowledged that nervousness and anxiety could manifest physically, leading to symptoms such as fever and loose motions. The Court emphasized the importance of sensitivity and empathy in cases involving minor victims of sexual assault, noting that courts must ensure the victim’s dignity and mental well-being are respected.
The Court remarked that “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.”
The Court further remarked that “Of course, the predecessor bench directed expeditious trial in view of incarceration of the applicants. But that cannot be read in such a manner as to cause such a trauma on such a victim, as if it is she who was the aggressor. Sensitivity while dealing with children who are victims of sexual violence is the most important facet of such specially constituted courts.”
The Court condemned the Trial Court’s insistence on medical verification on the very first instance of non-appearance by the prosecutrix. It remarked that exemption requests by victims of sexual violence must not be equated with similar requests from accused persons. Additionally, the Court took serious note of a male constable’s visit to the prosecutrix’s house on the night of 18-03-2025, in violation of the Trial Court’s directive for the IO/SHO to handle the verification. The ACP concerned was directed to submit a detailed report regarding this incident.
The Court also reprimanded the absence of the IO, sub-inspector, and the SHO, highlighting their lack of accountability in a case of such gravity. The bail applications were adjourned, and the matter was listed for further hearing on 22-04-2025.
[Ashlok v. State Govt NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 3900/2024, decided on 20-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Neha singh and Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with Inspector Manoj from PS Shalimar Bagh Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Advocate for respondent
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
