A petition was moved in Delhi High Court challenging the interim bail by Sessions Court; to the accused guilty under Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Single bench consisted of Justice Brijesh Sethi. Advocate Tara Narula filed the petition. In effect, The Delhi High Court issued directions to the Registrar General to circulate the practice orders dated September 29, 2019; the orders passed in the case of Reena Jha v. Union Of India to District and Session Courts. Being that, they have to show compliance with these directions.
The directions mandate the presence of the informant or any other person authorized at the time of hearing of the bail under Section 376 or its sub-sections. The petitioner argued that the Session Court’s order is bad in law as it deprived the complainant of the opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the Session Court has not complied with the orders of the High Court. The Session Court also overlooked the fact that the Victim lives in close proximity to the accused’s house.
Hence, the bail can cause a threat to her life. On the other hand, the State’s Counsel submitted that the directions are followed in both the letter and spirit. The Court after analyzing the facts issued directions to the Registrar General. Further, the Investigating Officer will be notified to show strict compliance with the same. The court also directed to give the contact numbers of Police Personnel to the victim/ complainant in case of an emergency.
