Patna High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DSP Accused Of Raping Minor Maid In Govt Quarter

While denying relief to the petitioner Kamla Kant Prasad, Justice Rajiv Roy observed:

“The petitioner being a Police Officer was duty bound to protect the victim girl but he himself became a predator and in the process, raped her and there was no one in the government quarter to save her from the alleged act of the petitioner.”

Factual Background

The brother of the victim girl complained to the police that his sister informed him about forcible sexual intercourse committed upon her by the petitioner in his Government quarter during the Dussehra festival in 2017, where she had stayed for a night prior to coming to Patna to serve as a maid for the petitioner’s wife. Prasad was then working as DSP, Gaya.

Though the accused was provided interim protection in August 2021, it was vacated on 07.10.2021.

In February 2022, cognizance was taken by the court below. Since the accused failed to appear before the trial court, he was declared an absconder and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. were initiated. 

Contentions of Parties

Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner, submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR as the alleged occurrence took place in 2017 but the FIR was lodged in 2021. 

"Contrary to the claim that she was a minor and her date of birth is 16.05.2003, the Doctor in another FIR lodged by her in 2016 had assessed her age to be seventeen and half years meaning thereby she was more than 18 years in 2017. Thus, POCSO Act is not attracted in the present case.," the counsel said.

Amit Srivastava, Senior Counsel, on behalf of the informant, cited the case diary and referred to the statement of an ASI wherein she has admitted that during the 2017 ‘Dussehra’, she got a call from the petitioner's wife and came to know about the alleged rape. She also stated that when she informed the same to the petitioner, he was very angry and threatened to remove her from job. As she feared losing her job and since no one came forward to lodge FIR, she remained silent.

The Senior Counsel also relied on the order of the Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar to submit that when the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been initiated, the accused cannot be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Court’s Observations

At the outset, the Court took note of the fact that the victim girl had explained the incident to the petitioner’s wife the very next day of the incident and she in turn informed the Officer In-charge of the Women Police Station, Gaya. 

"But the lady (ASI) after her visit to the petitioner’s office where she was scolded, chose to remain silent as she waited for the victim girl/her brother to come to lodge FIR and in its absence, she did not proceed further," noted the court.

As far as dispute regarding date of birth was concerned, the court found force in the submissions put forward by the Senior Counsel for the victim girl that once the school certificate, indicating her to be minor, is on record, the same will have primacy over and above any opinion given by any medical officer.

The court further said that Prem Shankar Prasad case does not aid the petitioner but rather supports the case of the informant as the Supreme Court has clearly held that when a prima facie case is made out after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the court has taken cognizance and the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been initiated, it is not proper to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the accused.

Holding that the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail, the court said:

“The petitioner being a Police Officer misused his official quarter where no staff was present due to ‘Dussehera’ time and allegedly raped the victim girl who was the age of his daughter and in that background he does not deserve any relief.”

Case Title: Kamla Kant Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Anr.

Case No.: Crl. Misc. No. 64184/2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 6

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey & Mr. Nilkamal, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Usha Kumari-1, Special Public Prosecutor for the State; Mr. Amit Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mirtunjay Kumar & Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocates for the Informant

Click Here To Read/Download Order