Delhi High Court Refuses To Modify Bail Condition Directing Accused To Stay 10 KMs Away From Prosecutrix's Home In POCSO Case

The Delhi High Court has refused to modify a trial court's bail condition imposed on an accused who was granted bail in a POCSO case directing him to stay 10 KMs away from the residence of prosecutrix till further orders, after the same was modified by the trial court thrice.

The petitioner accused had approached the High Court for relaxing the bail condition after the same was modified by the Sessions Judge considering the health condition of the accused person by reducing the distance of 25 kms. to 10 kms. The Trial Court had relaxed the condition on three occasions.

Observing that the petitioner was not justified in repeatedly approaching the courts for modifying the bail conditions, a single judge bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"The repeated attempts on the part of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. However, this should not be taken as a total prohibition on the part of the petitioner to approach the courts for relaxation of conditions if there is a material change in circumstance."

Furthermore, it said:

"It is well settled that in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court does not in absence of perversity upset the judgement of the courts below. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge impugned in the present petition cannot be said to be perverse."

The petition was filed challenging three orders passed by the Sessions Judge with regards to a FIR filed under sec 323, 354, 354B, 506, 509 and 34 IPC read with sec. 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

While granting regular bail to the petitioner, the trial court had imposed the condition directing that "He shall stay away at least a distance of 25 KM from the residence of the prosecutrix for the time being till further orders."

The condition was relaxed by the trial court vide order dated 25th January 2021 considering the fact that the petitioner had undergone a heart surgery and permitted him to stay in his house for a period of one month.

To more applications were moved by the petitioner after which the trial court had relaxed the condition and directed the petitioner to stay 10 kms. away from the house of the prosecutrix for post-surgery care.

Considering the facts of the case, the Court observed thus:

"On a perusal of the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court is without considering the relevant factors. The Court cannot brush aside the statement by the prosecutrix made under Section 164 CrPC stating that the petitioner has threatened her and her family."

"Unless the finding of the court below whose decision is sought to be challenged either in the revisional jurisdiction or under Section 482 CrPC is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the High Court would not interfere with its decision exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC."

With the aforesaid observations, the Court dismissed the plea.

Title: SUBHASH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Click Here To Read Order