Suspended IAS officer gets transit bail from Delhi HC in sexual assault case

The Delhi High Court has granted transit anticipatory bail to recently suspended IAS officer Jitendra Narain in an alleged sexual assault of a woman. The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna while granting the transit anticipatory bail said, considering the submissions and without giving any opinion on merits, it deemed it was appropriate to allow the […]

by TDG Network - October 22, 2022, 10:15 am

The Delhi High Court has granted transit anticipatory bail to recently suspended IAS officer Jitendra Narain in an alleged sexual assault of a woman.

The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna while granting the transit anticipatory bail said, considering the submissions and without giving any opinion on merits, it deemed it was appropriate to allow the petitioner/Jitender Narain to avail his legal remedy to approach the Court at Port Blair till 28 October, 2022, and is protected only till that date. The court clarifies that this order of protection from arrest will be automatically revoked on 29 October.

The bench also stated that allegations at this stage are not permitted as it may prejudice the case of either party.

Rather than it would be in the fitness of things, the court concerned, who is seized of the matter, should look into the merits or demerits of the case. The petitioner only asks for protection to avail legal remedy before the Court at Circuit Bench at Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair.

Jitendra Narain, a senior IAS officer and former Chief Secretary of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, was recently suspended with immediate effect by the Ministry of Home Affairs following allegations of sexual assault. An FIR has been registered against Narain, who is a 1990-batch IAS officer of the AGMUT cadre.

Petition moved in Delhi HC stated that while serving as Chief Secretary, he attempted to implement various reforms in various departments of the administration, earning the wrath and enmity of various individuals both inside and outside the administration.

Jitendra Narain specifically refers to the fact that on 20 April, 2022, he passed an order imposing a minor penalty upon a junior engineer for some misconduct. It is stated thereafter that the Lieutenant Governor had removed that junior engineer from service on 15.01.2022 and the present FIR has been filed by the daughter-in-law of that junior engineer.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, along with Advocates Gaurav Gupta and Samyak Gangwal, appeared for Jitendra Narain and submitted before the court that on 22 August, 2022, the first complaint was filed by the prosecutrix before the SHO concerned, wherein she gave two dates when she was sexually exploited: 14 April, 2022, and 1 May, 2022, when she was called by the petitioner at his residence at about 9 PM and she stayed there till 11 PM, where the petitioner, along with another official, namely Rishi, had allegedly raped her.

The prosecutrix in her complaint under Section 156(3) CrPc., filed along with an affidavit and the FIR dated 01.10.2022, again gave these two dates when rape was allegedly committed. Lawyers argued

Lawyers further submitted that the petitioner from April 14, 2022, to April 18, 2022, was not in Andaman and Nicobar Island but rather was in Delhi and purportedly filed sufficient evidence for the same.

During the course of arguments, the ASC for the State also did not deny this fact.

On the second date of the incident, viz., May 1, 2022, it is stated that no doubt the petitioner was at his residence but his family members and guests were there and such an incident could not have happened in their presence.

Jitendra Narain stated in a plea that the complaint was motivated because it was filed by the daughter-in-law of an official to whom he had issued a minor penalty and who was eventually removed from service.

Advocate Rajat Nair, along with Dhruv Pande, appeared for the state and opposed the transit bail plea and submitted that there are clear and categorical allegations against the petitioner for having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on two instances against her consent, and that such a statement alone is enough to convict the petitioner. It was also stated an application for anticipatory bail by a co-accused was dismissed by the competent court. It was submitted that there were instances of tampering with the evidence against the petitioner.