Delhi High Court grants bail in POCSO case due to over 2-year delay in complaint filing

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, where the complaint was lodged after a significant delay of more than two and half years.
Advocate Amit Sahni, representing the accused, argued that the initial FIR was filed by the victim's mother on June 29, 2021, regarding allegations of rape. The accused was arrested the same day but was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge on July 7, 2021.
However, the daughter's complaint under the POCSO Act was filed much later, prompting the defence to question the unexplained and inordinate delay in reporting the crime, as submitted by Advocate Amit Sahni.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, in an order passed recently, noted that the incident narrated in the present case allegedly occurred on the eve of the registration of the other FIR by the mother of the victim. However, the complaint regarding the present offence was made nearly two years after the alleged incident had taken place.
In her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, the victim stated that she informed her mother of the incident the very next day. However, it was noted that the prosecutor's mother did not mention anything regarding the alleged offence committed by the applicant against the victim while lodging the FIR.
Even during the submissions made at the time of considering the bail application of the applicant in the above-noted case, no reference was made to the incident alleged in the present FIR, the court stated.
While granting bail to the accused, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manoj Ohri, referenced the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The victim stated that at the time of the alleged offence, while her parents were away, her grandparents, uncle, aunt, and younger brother were present in the house. Furthermore, she mentioned that it was her aunt who intervened and pulled the accused away from her during the incident.
Despite this, the court noted that none of these details were reported until the filing of the current FIR, raising concerns about the delayed reporting, as stated by the court.
Taking into account these arguments and the prolonged delay, the court granted bail to the accused upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with a surety of the same amount.