POCSO accused's challenge to restraining order denied

New Delhi: Calling it nothing but an "abuse of the process of law" and "not justified" on the part of the petitioner to repeatedly approach courts in this regard, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a POCSO accused out on bail challenging an order refusing to extend his stay at his house claiming lack of other accommodations due to Covid-19, after he moved courts several times to reduce the 25 km distance set between him and the victim while granting him bail, on account of his illness.

A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad stated that there was nothing "perverse" or "untenable in law" in the lower courts' order refusing to extend his stay at his home and hence the bench cannot overturn the ruling. "...it cannot be said that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court is without considering the relevant factors," the order said, adding: "The Court cannot brush aside the the statement by the Prosecutrix made under the Section 164 CrPC stating that the petitioner has threatened her and her family".

The court also took note of the status reports filed by the SHO of Anand Parbat Police Station which stated that if the petitioner stays in his house, then the parties may again indulge in quarrel with each other.

The case dates back to last year when the victim lodged a complaint on October 18 stating that on the previous day in the evening, when she, her sister and her parents were repairing the door of her house, the accused, one Subhash, along with his wife, son and daughter-in-law misbehaved with her. He allegedly pulled the woman's clothes and touched her stomach, and his son Rohit gave an elbow blow on her breast and pelted stones on her house.

Accordingly, an FIR was registered under the relevant sections of IPC and Section 10 (Punishment for aggravated sexual assault) and Section 12 (Punishable for sexual harrasment) was registered, naming the accused. Meanwhile, a cross FIR was also registered against seven persons, including the victim and her parents under IPC Sections of voluntarily causing hurt and wrongful restraint, among others.

Consequently, while granting bail to Subhash, the court imposed a condition that he has to stay at least 25 kms away from the victim till further orders. Thereafter, he filed a plea claiming that he had a heart attack and a stent was attached in his heart following which he was allowed to stay in his house, despite the victim stating that he had already violated the condition and visited her place. This relaxation was extended by another month on account of his ill-health but when another application was filed seeking extension of his stay, the same was denied by court and a 9 km distance was set as the condition.

Justice Prasad's order, while dismissing the plea, stated, "The petitioner is not justified in repeatedly approaching the courts in modifying the conditions...the repeated attempts on the part of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law".