False POCSO Case – MLA Rakhi Birla and MLA Surender Commando bail granted: Ravi Drall Advocate Criminal Lawyer in Delhi
False POCSO Case – MLA Rakhi Birla and MLA Surender Commando bail granted: Ravi Drall Advocate Criminal Lawyer in Delhi
Advocate ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ย appeared for AAP MLA Rakhi Birla(Dy. Speaker Delhi Legislative Assembly, MLA Mangolpuri Constituency) and MLA Surender Commando (MLA Delhi Cantt. Constituency) who was falsely implicated through a complaint filed under POCSO Act.
This is gross misuse of POCSO Act by the complainant whose family was involved in murder case when fair investigation was demanded by MLAs, complainant s were given against them.
A Special POCSO Court here granted bail to Delhi Assembly Deputy Speaker Rakhi Birla and MLA Surinder Singh (Commando) who were accused in a court complaint of barging into the home of an 11-year-old boy in Palam and intimidating him. AAP MLA was summoned by Hon’ble Sessions Court, Patiala House. Considering the vague allegations, 5 years of gap, Delay in complaint, joining of investigation, no interference in investigation, no motive of MLA to interfere, regular bail was granted after addressing of arguments from Advocate Ravi Drall.
The prominent AAP leaders had appeared in court, in response to summons issued by Delhi court, after dismissing a court complaint in this regard. According to the court complaint, which was filed by the 11-year-old victim through his uncle, Birla and Singh, in January 2014, had allegedly led a crowd of supporters to the boy’s home and threatened him for information on his parents. In the complaint, the child’s uncle said that Singh allegedly started touching the boy inappropriately and threatened to “do untoward things to him and kill him” if he didn’t divulge information on his parents’ whereabouts. The complaint also alleged that Birla was watching all this while and threatened to burn down the boy’s home if he didn’t say where his parents were. Also Read – Delhi records minimum temperature of 25.2 deg C The alleged victim’s uncle explained in the complaint that the boy’s parents were not at home because they were entangled in legal matters of seeking anticipatory bail for the child’s father, who was an accused in an FIR registered a few days before the alleged incident. However, when the victim’s family went to get an FIR registered at the concerned police station against Birla and Singh, their complaint was dismissed. The same thing happened when the family approached the court to file a complaint, which was dismissed.ย Defense counsel Advocate Ravi Drall, while arguing for his client’s bail application, said that the complaint did not have much merit, given that there was no record of it in any police station and that the subsequent court complaint was filed more than 40 days after the alleged incident. Moreover, defense counsel also pointed out that the FIR against the child’s father included a murder charge under section 302 of the IPC. While passing the bail order for both Birla and Singh, the court asked the accused to post a bond of Rs 20,000 each and disposed off the summons application.
Reference : False POCSO Case
Advocate Ravi Drall has represented clients in cases related to Anticipatory, regular Bails, Acquittal, Revisions, Appeals, Writs, PIL’s in cases of MCOCA, Cheating, Fraud, Murder, Attempt to murder, Extortion, Dacoity, Sexual Offences, Suicide, Narcotic and Drugs, Revenue and Customs Criminal Cases, Economic Offences, Arms and Weapons, Matrimonial, Domestic Violence, Constitutional Law, Negligence, and have availed favourable decisions from the courts. It is always advisable to seek for the best professional legal advise in case of criminal law as it involves intricate complexities and a small fact lead to an acquittal.