Bail in POCSO cases to Delhi Dy. Speaker Rakhi Birla, Advocate Ravi Drall

Granted Bail in POCSO cases to Delhi Dy. Speaker Rakhi Birla, MLA Surinder Commando represented by Advocate Ravi Drall.

A Special POCSO Court granted bail in POSCO case to Delhi Assembly Deputy Speaker Rakhi Birla and MLA Surinder Singh (Commando) who were represented by Advocate Ravi Drall. Both the accused were summoned in  court in a  complaint of barging into the home of an 11-year-old boy in Palam and intimidating him.

The prominent AAP leaders had appeared in court, in response to summons issued by Delhi court, after dismissing a court complaint in this regard. According to the court complaint, which was filed by the 11-year-old victim through his uncle, Birla and Singh, in January 2014, had allegedly led a crowd of supporters to the boy’s home and threatened him for information on his parents.

In the complaint, the child’s uncle said that Singh allegedly started touching the boy inappropriately and threatened to “do untoward things to him and kill him” if he didn’t divulge information on his parents’ whereabouts. The complaint also alleged that Birla was watching all this while and threatened to burn down the boy’s home if he didn’t say where his parents were.

The alleged victim’s uncle explained in the complaint that the boy’s parents were not at home because they were entangled in legal matters of seeking anticipatory bail for the child’s father, who was an accused in an FIR registered a few days before the alleged incident. However, when the victim’s family went to get an FIR registered at the concerned police station against Birla and Singh, their complaint was dismissed.

The same thing happened when the family approached the court to file a complaint, which was dismissed. Defense counsel for Singh, Ravi Drall, while arguing for his client’s bail application, said that the complaint did not have much merit, given that there was no record of it in any police station and that the subsequent court complaint was filed more than 40 days after the alleged incident.

Moreover, defense counsel also pointed out that the FIR against the child’s father included a murder charge under section 302 of the IPC. While passing the bail order for both Birla and Singh, the court asked the accused to post a bond of Rs 20,000 each and disposed off the summons application.

Is Love affair ground of bail in POCSO cases?

In the case of Dharmander Singh @Saheb v. The State (Govt. Of NCT, Delhi), (Bail Appl. 1559/2020),  the judgment of the High Court, Delhi dated on, 22-09-2020, stated about the essential factors that should be focused upon hearing an application for bail in the protection of children from sexual offences (POCSO) cases.

However in this case, following the situations and circumstances, the court laid down the positions that could “tilt the balance against or in favour of the accused “. The conditions are as follows:

  1. the age of the minor victim: the younger the victim, the more heinous the offense alleged;
  2. the age of the accused: the older the accused, the more heinous the offense alleged
  3. the comparative age of the victim and the accused: the more their age difference, the more the element of perversion in the offence alleged;
  4. the familial relationship, if any, between the victim and the accused: the closer such relationship, the more odious the offence alleged;
  5. whether the offence alleged involved threat, intimidation, violence and/or brutality; f. the conduct of the accused after the offence, as alleged;
  6. whether the offence was repeated against the victim; or whether the accused is a repeat offender under the POCSO Act or otherwise;
  7. whether the victim and the accused are so placed that the accused would have easy access to the victim, if enlarged on bail: the more the access, the greater the reservation in granting bail;
  8. the comparative social standing of the victim and the accused: this would give insight into whether the accused is in a dominating position to subvert the trial;
  9. whether the offence alleged was perpetrated when the victim and the accused were at an age of innocence: an innocent, though unholy, the physical alliance may be looked at with less severity;
  10. whether it appears there was tacit approval-in-fact, though not consent-in-law, for the offence alleged;
  11. whether the offence alleged was committed alone or along with other persons, acting in a group or otherwise;
  12. other similar real-life considerations”

If you need any help any assistance related to any case you can contact Advocate Ravi Drall .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?