Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1906 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - allegation of sexual assault on a minor girl - petitioner claims that the allegation was made, after he sent notice demanding his professional charges for treatment of victim - HELD THAT:- Mere delay in reporting the matter to the authorities concerned, especially sexual assault on a minor girl, is immaterial and it would not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, in the instant case, it is not the delay alone that is significant. The significant fact is that the complaint was given to the authorities concerned only two weeks after the mother received the lawyer notice from the petitioner claiming a huge amount as professional fees. This raises suspicion on the prosecution case against the petitioner. When the victim had disclosed the matter to her mother in July, 2018, one would have expected the mother to report the matter to the authorities concerned much earlier than 22.09.2018. The fact that she reported the matter only after receiving a lawyer notice from the petitioner assumes significance. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act does not mean that the prosecution version has to be accepted as gospel truth in every case. The presumption does not mean that the court cannot take into consideration the special features of a particular case. Patent absurdities or inherent infirmities or improbabilities in the prosecution version may lead to an irresistible inference of falsehood in the prosecution case. The presumption would come into play only when the prosecution is able to bring on record facts that would form the foundation for the presumption - No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. It should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case in consonance with the legislative intention. In the instant case, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he actually touched any private part of the victim girl. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation of the case. The prosecution has no case that on getting bail, the petitioner would flee from justice. He has got no criminal antecedents - The apprehension expressed by the prosecution is only that the petitioner would threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, if released on bail. Such a contingency can be avoided by imposing appropriate conditions on granting bail. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No. 592 of 2018 of Nedupuzha Police Station - Application allowed.
|