Top News Headlines 24th Mar 2022: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To A Judicial Officer And Two Clerks Accused Of Assaulting A Minor Boy

Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To A Judicial Officer And Two Clerks Accused Of Assaulting A Minor Boy

• The Rajasthan HC has, in Rahul Katara vs State of Rajasthan granted bail to a Judicial Officer and two clerks who were accused of sexually assualting a 14 year old boy.
• This infamous incident made headlines last year when the victim’s mother filed an FIR wherein she had alleged that her child of 14 years played tennis at the District club Company and it was there that he came in contact with the accused Jitendra Guliya who also played tennis there.
• It was alleged that he persuaded her son to accompany him to his residence where he gave the victim a drink laced with some intoxicants and after he thereafter committed unnatural sex with him. It was also alleged in the complaint that the accused had videographed the entire incident and threatened the victim of dire consequences if he talked about the incident with anyone.
• It was also alleged by the complainant that the accused had later admitted his guilt and asked for her forgiveness and also assured her that he would not repeat the same in the future. It was also alleged in the FIR that the accused along with a police officer named PL Yadav tried to frame the complainant in a false case of extortion.
• The Counsel for the petitioner alleged that the incident had come to light on 28-10-2021 when the complainant saw the accused kissing the victim but the FIR was lodged on 31-10-2021 after an inordinate delay and only after a case of extortion was registered. It was also alleged that the statements of the complainant as well as the victim reveal that no such confrontation was made on the phone call with the petitioner.
• The learned Counsel further submitted that the entire case was a fabrication as no independent witnesses had corroborated her allegations regarding sexual abuse.
• The Hon’ble Rajasthan HC relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs CBI (2021) SCC wherein the Court had observed that from the earliest times, it has been laid down that the object of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Thus, the HC observed that pre-conviction detention is not authorised by law. Imprisonment may follow a judgement of conviction but should not precede it.
• The Court observed that in the present case, no apprehension has been shown by the State nor has any material been brought on record to show that the accused may not appear for his trial. The seriousness of the allegation is not the only factor which needs to be considered for rejecting bail.
• The Court further observed that the accused is a judicial officer and if the pre-conviction detention does not lead to a conviction then the damage to his reputation could never be compensated. The Court also observed that the accused was languishing in prison and that his further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose.
• Thus, the Court enlarged the accused on bail.

Professional Misconduct: MP High Court Refuses To Quash Charges Against Advocate u/s 19 And 21 POCSO For ‘Advising’ Rape Accused To Conceal Facts

• In the case of Hiralal Dhruve vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. the Madhya Pradesh HC has refused to interfere with the charge framed against an Advocate under POCSO Act for allegedly ill-advising the prosecutrix and the accused to not disclose the true facts to the police as well as the trial Court.
• In this case, a criminal revision petition had been filed by the applicant who was aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, by which he was charged for an offence punishable under section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act.
• It is important to note that section 19 of the impugned Act casts a duty upon any person who comes to know that an offence under POCSO has been committed or is likely to be committed to convey the same to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. Section 21 of the Act provides for the punishment for failure to report the case.
• The applicant Advocate argued before the HC that he had done nothing wrong and that it was his job to advise his client so that they can put up a strong defence. He submitted that no case was made out against him and that the trial Court had failed to appreciate the same.
• The Counsel for the State, on the other hand, argued that the statements of the prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 of CrPC clearly show that the applicant had advised/tutored her to make a false statement before the trial Court that the accused had not committed the said offence. It was also alleged that he had told the accused not to state the true facts before the trial Court.
• While dismissing the revision petition, the HC observed that after considering the statements of the prosecutrix and the provisions of section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court.
• The Court observed that section 19 of the Act clearly provides that as soon as a person receives the information that an offence under POCSO has been committed, he should convey the same to the authorities. Instead, what the applicant did is that he ill-advised the prosecutrix. Thus, an offence has been rightly registered against him.