The Delhi High Court in the case Babu Lal Bhawariya v. State Of NCT Delhi observed and has rejected the bail plea of the accused who has been accused of repeatedly raping his minor student and threatening to make video-recording of it viral. The accused was booked under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The bench headed by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani in its order stated that the said court should not ignore the fact that since the petitioner and the prosecutrix were interacting as teacher and student, the alleged offence, if it is being proved during trial, wherein it takes an egregious and aggravated form which comes to be proved during trial and is particularly in view of the specific statutory mandate under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 5(f) of the POCSO Act.
It has been stated by the court that there also appears to be forensic evidence that reads strongly against the petitioner, which includes the forensic report wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s DNA matches the DNA found on certain exhibits relating to the prosecutrix collected during investigation.
The court also considered that the interaction between the petitioner and the prosecutrix is supposed to have been only that between the teacher and the student, the same remains to be explained as to why the DNA matches.
In the present case, the accused teacher in the month of April 2021 asked the prosecutrix to meet him at the Rithala Metro Station on the pretext of providing her with some notes for an exam. Thus, it has allegedly been informed by him to her upon meeting the prosecutrix, that he needed to give her some more notes which were at his residence wherein it is alleged that at his residence, the teacher offered the prosecutrix some water and snacks, after consuming which the prosecutrix fainted and the teacher committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her and when the prosecutrix regained consciousness, he allegedly showed to her an objectionable video-recording of the incident and threatened the prosecutrix against telling anyone about the incident, else he would make the video viral in the case. Therefore, the teacher committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix about 4 times at his house and about 7 times at one Hotel, while she was been threatened to make the objectionable video viral.
The court in the case observed and has noted that as per the prosecutrix’s Class-II School Leaving Certificate and her Class-X Mark Sheet filed along with the chargesheet and at the time of the commission of some of the alleged sexual assaults, the prosecutrix was minor. Thus, it was also submitted that the prosecutrix attained majority in January,2022 and the alleged sexual acts by the petitioner upon her were stated to have continued even thereafter. The complaint was filed with the police and the FIR was registered, after the alleged last incident in June, 2022.
Further, it has been stated by the court that the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure supports the prosecution case and the said court finds no reason to disbelieve the statement so recorded.
The bench of Justice Bhambhani also noted that it also being the part of the record, though yet to be proved in evidence, that the petitioner paid for the hotel room and checked into the hotel alongwith the prosecutrix based on a false ID.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case that this court is not sure that the petitioner would not influence witnesses or flee from justice or otherwise attempt to prejudice the trial of the case, if he is enlarged on bail.
