Delhi HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Shopkeeper Accused of Sexually Assaulting Minor Girl

Delhi HC has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a shopkeeper accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor girl.

New Delhi:The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a shopkeeper accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a minor girl at his shop. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the allegations were serious and grave in nature, the statement of the survivor was consistent and the investigation was at a crucial stage and therefore, "the present application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed".

As per the prosecution, the accused repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault over a prolonged period, after the prosecutrix and her family had shifted to the neighbourhood in October 2023. It was alleged that he coerced her into visiting his shop under threats of causing harm to her family. In October last year, she confided in her mother about the sexual assault, leading to the filing of an FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

In the judgement, the court rejected the ground of delay in registration of the FIR and observed that the prosecutrix did not initially disclose the incidents to anyone, but she has "stood by these allegations in the initial complaint as well as in her statement recorded before the magistrate".

The applicant also claimed that CCTV footage from his shop did not depict any act of sexual assault on the last date when the alleged incident last took place. The court, however, said CCTV footage had been sent for forensic examination, and its authenticity and veracity were yet to be ascertained.

"Until the forensic report is available, no conclusive inference can be drawn from the footage, and therefore, at this stage, it does not aid the case of the applicant," the court said in the judgement passed on February 14.

"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the age of the victim, the nature of the offence, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this court finds no ground to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant," it concluded.