Surestha vs State (NCT Of Delhi)

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

Present bail application has been filed under section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 359/2023 dated 18.06.2023 registered under Sections 323/341 IPC r/w Section 75 J.J. Act at PS Govind Puri. Later, section 12 of POCSO Act was also added.

The allegations in the FIR are quite grave and strange in nature. As per the FIR the victim, a minor child aged 7 yrs, was beaten & disrobed by the husband of the applicant in public. Allegations were also levelled that the victim was given electric shock. It was alleged that the victim child used to ring the doorbell of people in the neighbourhood at night, and that he rang the doorbell of the house of the petitioner, where she resides along with her husband and children.

On the night of the incident at around 01:00 AM when the child rang the bell of the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner i.e. co-accused Amit got so angry that he apprehended the child, disrobed him, gave him beatings and also gave him electric shock.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations levelled are against the husband of the petitioner and not the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even as per the FIR the offence of POCSO are not made out.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has four children and there is nobody to take care of the children if the petitioner is taken into custody.

Issue notice.

Learned APP for the State has accepted the notice and vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground of the nature and gravity of the allegations. It has been submitted that despite issuance of notice, the petitioner did not appear before the learned Trial Court. It has been further submitted that even NBWs have been issued against the petitioner.

Let the status report be filed.

In the meanwhile, learned counsel undertakes that the petitioner shall appear before the IO as and when called.

Let the petitioner appear before the IO as and when directed. In case IO feels the necessity of affecting arrest of the petitioner/accused, IO shall give four weeks’ notice to the petitioner.

In view of directions, the application stands disposed of.