Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Yogesh .....Petitioner/ vs State (G.N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 29 July, 2020

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                                                   via Video-conferencing

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    BAIL APPL. 1816/2020

     YOGESH                                      .....Petitioner/Applicant
                           Through:   Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.

                           Versus

     STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI)           .... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
                                State.
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                     ORDER

% 29.07.2020 In compliance of last order dated 21.07.2020, Mr. Ajay Kumar son of Sh. Banwari Lal, father and pairokar of the applicant, who had filed the affidavit containing the offending images, has appeared before the court via video-conferencing. He has been queried on the filing of the photographs. He states inter-alia that the photographs were contained in a cellphone, which has since been handed-over to the Investigating Officer; and that there are no other photographs stored or available with him on any other device or on any back-up platform.

2. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant has made submissions on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar. Counsel has essentially relied upon section 15(2) of the POCSO Act 2012 to argue that the said provision creates an exception for storing/possessing pornographic material involving a child inter alia for use as evidence Bail Appl. 1816/2020 Page 1 of 2 in a court. Counsel further submits that section 228A IPC is not applicable since the allegation against the applicant is not of offences under Section 376 IPC or its aggravated forms, to which section 228A applies.

3. Written submissions dated 21.07.2020 have been filed on behalf of the applicant.

4. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP for the State has drawn attention to sections 33(6) and (7) of the POCSO Act 2012 to submit that section 15(2) must be read in the broader context of section 33; and that the 'open' filing of the offending photographs is therefore an offence inter alia under the POCSO Act. Mr. Srivastava also relies upon Rule 11 of the POCSO Rules 2020.

5. Before proceeding further in the bail application, it is deemed appropriate to consider the foregoing submissions in greater detail since the offending photographs were evidently filed at the behest, instance and in aid of the applicant's bail plea.

6. Let written synopses of submissions, not exceeding 05 pages, on the foregoing aspects be filed by both sides for next date, along with any judicial precedents relied upon.

7. Mr. Ajay Kumar shall also remain present via video- conferencing on the next date.

8. List for further consideration on 3rd September 2020.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.

JULY 29, 2020 Ne Bail Appl. 1816/2020 Page 2 of 2