Court Grants Bail to Accused in High-Profile Sexual Assault Case.
12 August 2024
Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law | Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law | Evidence >> Criminal Law | Rape >> Criminal Law
In a recent ruling, the court granted bail to the petitioner in a high-profile sexual assault case, raising several key legal questions. The case, involving Mohan Kumar v/s State(Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & Another, FIR No. 305/2024, was registered at Police Station Moti Nagar and includes serious allegations under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), and 508 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background:
The petitioner, who was previously in judicial custody since June 2024, faced allegations from the prosecutrix, who claimed that they had a consensual relationship beginning in 2014. According to the prosecutrix, the petitioner initiated a relationship with her under the pretense of marriage but later committed multiple acts of sexual violence and coercion.
The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner had forced her into sexual acts under the influence of drugs at various locations, including hotels, and took explicit photos and videos of her. She further claimed that after their purported marriage in February 2024, the petitioner did not follow through with marriage rituals or take her to his home, which led to the filing of a petition for annulment.
Legal Arguments and Considerations:
The petitioner’s defense argued that the allegations were a retaliatory move against a petition he filed for the marriage's annulment. They contended that the FIR was lodged after an undue delay and that the prosecutrix had consented to their relationship, which should not be classified as coercive.
Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the petitioner had engaged in multiple acts of rape and used coercion and threats to manipulate the prosecutrix. They also alleged that the marriage performed at an Arya Samaj Mandir was a façade to avoid legal consequences.
Court’s Decision on Bail:
The court carefully considered several factors before granting bail. According to the Supreme Court’s guidelines, the parameters for bail include the nature and gravity of the charge, the severity of the punishment, the potential for witness influence, and the character and standing of the accused. In this case, the court noted that the prosecutrix's allegations involved complex issues of consent and deception under the guise of marriage promises. The court acknowledged that while serious, the matter of whether the promise to marry was false or made in good faith would be determined at trial.
Key points influencing the bail decision included:
- Duration of Custody: The petitioner had been in custody since mid-June 2024.
- Flight Risk: Both parties had established social and professional roots, mitigating the risk of fleeing.
- Influence and Evidence Tampering: The court imposed strict conditions to prevent evidence tampering or witness intimidation.
Bail Conditions:
The court outlined several conditions for bail:
- Security: The petitioner must provide a security of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, one being a relative.
- Residence: The petitioner must continue residing at his current address and notify any changes.
- Weekly Reporting: The petitioner is required to report to the local police station weekly.
- Contact Restrictions: The petitioner must not contact the prosecutrix or her family and must not tamper with evidence.
- Mobile Communication: The petitioner must keep his mobile numbers operational and share them with the investigating officer.
- Court Attendance: The petitioner is required to attend all court proceedings.
The court emphasized that the bail would be canceled if the petitioner attempted to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Conclusion:
The bail decision, while granting temporary relief to the petitioner, underscores the gravity of the accusations and the need for a thorough judicial examination of the evidence. The court refrained from making any observations on the merits of the case, focusing solely on the bail application and ensuring the legal process continues without prejudice.