Tag: 高端外围

“Why FIR Was Not Registered Immediately”: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Raping 2 ½ years Old Child Citing 8 Hours Delay In Filing FIR

first_imgNews Updates”Why FIR Was Not Registered Immediately”: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Raping 2 ½ years Old Child Citing 8 Hours Delay In Filing FIR Akshita Saxena29 Jan 2021 2:36 AMShare This – xThe Delhi High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl aged two and a half years, citing 8 hours delay in filing of FIR. “The prosecutrix being 2 ½ years old, due to which her statement was not recorded, however, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case and keeping in view the fact that there is a delay of 8 hours in registration of FIR, I…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Delhi High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl aged two and a half years, citing 8 hours delay in filing of FIR. “The prosecutrix being 2 ½ years old, due to which her statement was not recorded, however, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case and keeping in view the fact that there is a delay of 8 hours in registration of FIR, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves bail,” the order passed by a Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait stated. The Bench contemplated why an FIR was not registered immediately, if such a heinous crime happened with a little girl. The order stated, “This Court has seen the CCTV footage and in the said CCTV footage, father of the victim was outside the building. Complainant entered into the building and within a minute, he is seen catching hold of the petitioner and bringing him out. If such type of heinous crime had taken place and that with a 2 ½ years old girl, why immediately the FIR was not registered.” The Bench was presiding over a bail application move by the accused, Shiv Chander, booked under Sections 376AB of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act allegedly for insisting the victim to perform oral sex while the zip of his pant was open. As per the FIR, on seeing this incident lot of neighbours gathered and beat the Petitioner, who was allegedly in an intoxicated state, following which the Petitioner was arrested. The Bench however noted certain contradictions in the material placed on record and expressed inclination to release the accused on bail. It observed, “There is a delay of 8 hours in registration of FIR and there was no sign of beating and intoxication in MLC of the petitioner because if the neighbors had beaten the petitioner and he was in a state of intoxication then the said fact should have come in the MLC, but the said MLC does not show any sign of bruises or abrasion, indicating that there was no public beating which was alleged in the FIR. xxx Accordingly, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.” Know the Law The Supreme Court has in a catena of judgments held that even a long delay in registration of First Information Report (FIR) can be condoned if the witness has no motive for falsely implicating the accused. In one such case, a Division Bench had observed, “Delay in setting the law into motion by lodging the complaint is normally viewed by the courts in suspicion because there is possibility of concoction of evidence against the accused. In such cases, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in registration of FIR. But there may be cases where the delay in registration of FIR is inevitable and the same has to be considered. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witness has no motive for falsely implicating the accused.” In another case, a three-Judge Bench had observed, “Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely.” Case Title: Shiv Chander v. NCT of Delhi Click Here To Download Order Read OrderNext Storylast_img read more

Continue Reading