Delhi rape case: HC dismisses pre-arrest bail plea of WCD official’s kids

The Delhi high court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the two children of suspended women and child development (WCD) department official Premoday Khakha, accused of raping a minor girl in his care multiple times at his residence in Burari between November 2020 and January 2021.

Khakha’s 19-year-old daughter and 21-year-old son are accused of abetting the alleged crime. According to the first information report (FIR) registered by the Delhi police on August 13, 2023, the girl had informed them about the incidents of rape but they disbelieved her. It was also stated in the FIR that Khakha’s son had procured a pregnancy test kit from the market at the behest of his mother that was used by the girl to confirm the pregnancy. Post this, she was given abortion pills by Khakha’s wife, which led to the termination of the pregnancy.

The FIR was registered under sections 376 (2)(f) (rape), 509 (outraging woman’s modesty) 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) 120 B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 read with sections 6 (sexual assault) and 21 (punishment for failure to report or record a case) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (POCSO).

Taking note of the fact that the investigating agency was unaware of the children’s whereabouts, justice Saurabh Banerjee said on Wednesday that granting them pre-arrest bail would not only be premature but may also tantamount to derailing the investigation, which is at a nascent stage.

“Lastly, this court cannot lose sight of the means, position and standing of the father of the applicant, who is a co-accused, coupled with the likelihood of tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses, causing obstacles to the investigation and resulting in derailing of the trial, most relevantly, and that the applicant is not traceable despite efforts of the investigating agency, which lead to a conclusion that he may be a flight risk upon grant of anticipatory bail,” the court said.

Khakha’s son and daughter, appearing through advocate Rahul Kumar, told the court that a specific role was assigned to them in the FIR. Stressing on their clean antecedents, he made an attempt to convince the court to grant them pre-arrest bail and also said that the son was recently enrolled in a College in Puducherry for further studies. Kumar also argued that the notice issued by the police under section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was improper. He added that the arrest would be arbitrary and unlawful since the children had already joined the investigation.

Opposing the anticipatory bail, special public prosecutor (SPP) Rupali Bandhopadhya, appearing for the Delhi police, said that Khakha’s children were non-cooperative as their mobile phones had been switched off for the past one month and the investigating agency failed to trace them despite best efforts. She added that Khakha’s son was actively involved in the commission of the offence as he himself had procured the medical pregnancy test kit. Opposing Khakha’s daughter’s bail, the SPP said that she failed to inform the appropriate authorities about the incident irrespective of the girl sharing her plight with Khakha’s daughter. Both applicants have actively abetted in the crime and hence their bail applications must be rejected, the SSP added.