Libertatem Magazine

Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in a Sexual Harassment Case.

Contents of this Page

A Petition had been filed by a well-known Yoga teacher Swami Ganeshananda. The Petitioner herein sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the CrPC before the Delhi High Court.

Facts of the Case:

A complaint was filed by 17 years old with her mother on June 14. The Complainant alleged that the Petitioner had clicked 4 to 5 photographs of her and made obscene gestures towards her while she was studying in her house on May 14. She also alleged that the Petitioner had abused her in filthy language. Due to which the Petitioner had been accused of the offenses under Section 354-A and 509 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act, 2012.

While the case of the Petitioner was that the allegations made in the complaint were false, and hence, sought Anticipatory Bail before the High Court of Delhi.

Petitioner’s Argument:

Ld. Senior Counsel, Mr.Manan, appeared for the Petitioner. He submitted that Section 354-A and Section 509 IPC are bailable offences and under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, the maximum sentence would be three years. Furthermore, due to which the Petitioner was entitled to bail. Ld.Counsel further relied on Joginder Kumar v. State (Bail Appln. 2364/2018) and Umesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Bail Appln. 2418/2016), where the Ld. Single Judges had granted bail.

Mr.Manan also submitted that after the Petition had been filed, the Petitioner had moved out of the colony where the Complainant resided so that the allegations of harassment or threats against him could be avoided.

Respondent’s Argument:

Ld. Counsel Ms.Rakhi Dubey appeared for the Complainant. She contended that the Petitioner had committed a heinous offence, as the Complainant is less than 18 years of age. She further submitted that even after the Court had granted interim protection to the Petitioner, threats have been extended to the Complainant and her family.

Ld. APP Mr.Raghuvinder Verma appeared for the State. He submitted that the Petitioner should not enter the area where the Complainant or her family resided.

Court’s Observation:

The Court took into account the various status reports that were filed. After this, it was revealed that there were several other FIRs that have been lodged against the Petitioner for similar offenses.

Court’s Order:

A Single Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh rejected the Petitioner’s prayers for Anticipatory Bail. The Court further directed the Petitioner to surrender before the authorities immediately.

For the original order of the Case, Click here. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author