IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELH
JAISHREE ….. Petitioner
STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ANR. ….. Respondents
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
- Instant petition underneath Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elite by a postulant / complainant to plea a legality and appropriateness of an sequence antiquated 25.02.2013 of schooled Metropolitan Magistrate by that respondent No.2 was postulated unchanging bail in box FIR No.63/13 purebred underneath Sections 354/506/452 IPC and 8/12 POCSO Act. Petition is contested by respondent No.2.
- I have listened a schooled warn for a parties and have examined a file. FIR No.63/13 was purebred during Police Station Burari underneath Sections 452/354/506 IPC and 8/12 POCSO Act on petitioner’s censure on 22.02.2013. It led to respondent No.2’s detain on 23.02.2013. A bail focus was changed by his warn before a schooled Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.02.2013 that was taken adult for conference on 25.02.2013. On examination of a bail application, it reveals that a warn wanting to divulge registration of FIR underneath Sections 8/12 POCSO Act also. In a standing report, a Investigating Officer, however, reported registration of FIR underneath Sections 8/12 POCSO Act. Though a IO W/SI Neeraj seemed in chairman during a time of care of bail focus on 25.02.2013, she did not indicate out a repudiation of offences underneath POCSO Act in a bail application. Considering that a FIR was purebred underneath a supplies of Indian Penal Code only, a Trial Court, by a impugned order, postulated bail to respondent No.2 as he was in control given 23.02.2013. Certain conditions were put during a time of extend of bail.
- Subsequently, focus underneath Section 437 (5) Cr.P.C. was changed by a plant / complainant for termination of bail on 08.03.2013. It was likely of after notice to a accused, his warn and a Investigating Officer. It annals declaration of a Investigating Officer to sojourn clever in future. The Trial Court was satisfactory adequate to record that there was an anomaly in flitting a bail sequence that she was incompetent to rectify. Certain observations about a functioning of a IO / SHO were also made. The pronounced sequence was challenged before Special Court. By an sequence antiquated 24.07.2013, a schooled Addl. Sessions Judge traffic with POCSO matters declined to cancel a bail.
- Main protest of a postulant is that schooled Metropolitan Magistrate had no office to perform and extend bail to respondent No.2 as offences underneath Sections 8/12 POCSO Act were exclusively triable by a Special Court. Reliance has been placed on ‘Ramrahit Singh vs. Dhananjoy Singh Ors.’, MANU/WB/0218/2015, ‘Ramu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.’, 2014(2)RLW 987 (Raj), ‘State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Mohd.Hussain @ Saleem’, 2014 (1) SCC 258, ‘State of Gujarat vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh’, 2003 (8) SCC 50, ‘State of Tamil Nadu vs. Paramasiva Pandian’, 2002 (1) SCC 15 ‘State of Bihar vs. Braj Nandan Raut’, 2001 Cri.L.J. 3678.
- Without going into debate as to either a schooled Metropolitan Magistrate was efficient to extend bail underneath POCSO Act, it is to be remarkable that during a time of extend of bail, a Trial Court was of bonafide faith that respondent No.2 was requisitioned by a Investigating Agency usually for elect of offences underneath Sections 354/506/452 IPC. The warn for a respondent No.2 had not suggested in a bail focus if Sections 8/12 POCSO Act were also there in a FIR. Since respondent No.2 was in control for a final dual days and a matter of a prosecutrix had already been available underneath Section 164 Cr.P.C., a Trial Court deemed it fit to extend bail putting certain conditions. Perusal of a record reveals that even FIR (At page-41 ‘annexure P-7’) does not simulate if Sections 8/12 POCSO Act were mentioned during a applicable place in mainstay No.2. In other duplicate of a pronounced FIR (At page-30 ‘annexure P-4’) Sections 8/12 POCSO Act seem opposite mainstay No. 2(ii). It is not transparent as to how and when, these Sections came to be combined in a strange FIR. The inequality has remained un-explained.
- Besides it, a Court traffic with POCSO matters after deliberation a opposition submissions of a parties did not find any belligerent to cancel a bail on merits. Apparently, Special Court traffic with POCSO matters has deliberate a merits of a box and did not find error with a bail postulated to a respondent No.2 on merits.
- Considering a rare contribution and resources of a box whereby due to bonafide mistake, bail was postulated by a Trial Court and a fact that a pronounced sequence was inspected by a Special Court, no sound reasons exist to cancel bail privately when a review is over and charge-sheet has already been filed before a Special Court.
- The petition lacks consequence and is dismissed. Trial Court record (if any) be sent behind forthwith with a duplicate of a order.