Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The present petition was filed seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the CrPC. The applicant (Yoga Teacher) in the instant case argued that the crime as alleged was not serious enough for the accused to be remanded under judicial custody. In this instant case of Complaint was filed by the 17 years old, alleging that the petitioner had clicked 4 to 5 photographs of her, used filthy language, and made obscene gestures towards her. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to the cases of Joginder Kumar v. State (Bail Appln. 2364/2018) and Umesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Bail Appln. 2418/2016) to submit that even if the case of the complainant is taken at the highest of the alleged offenses against the petitioner they would still be bailable offenses under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
The learned counsel also referred to the Supreme court case of Arnesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, to argue that mechanical and casual arrests should be avoided even if the case is under Section 498 –A of IPC. It was also submitted In the cases where the punishment of the offenses is less than 7 years this principle laid down by the SC should be followed. It also observed through the submissions of the counsel on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are many FIR’s lodged against the petitioner by women in the neighborhood. The petitioner being a yoga teacher needs to have a high sense of responsibility in society and ought not to be granted any protection by this court. The Delhi High court looked into the basic factors which courts will have to consider while exercising discretion for granting or not granting anticipatory bail such as the gravity of the offense, the role of the offender, circumstances involved, Flight risk, the possibility of tampering with evidence, etc. The court also held that ultimately its court’s discretion to grant or not grant protection in such an application for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to immediately surrender before the authorities.
86540
103860
630
114
59824