The Gauhati High Court declined an application for bail in a special POCSO case. The court noted doubts regarding the prosecution case and the victim's minority but held that the matter required further scrutiny and thus did not grant bail at this stage.
Bail application declined; the accused remains in jail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010128082021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/366/2021 in Crl.A./150/2021
BITUL MOHAN @ SINGH S/O- SRI TARAN MOHAN, VILL.- KHARANGI GAON, P.O. AND P.S. HALWATING SIVSAGAR, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B KHAKHLARY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
10.08.2022
[ N. Kotiswar Singh, J. ]
Heard Mr. B. Khakhlary, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Page No.# 2/3
The present application has been filed for granting bail in respect of accused applicant, who is at present in jail pursuant to the judgment and order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sivasagar, in Special POCSO Case No.17/2016 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
It has been submitted that serious doubts have arisen on the prosecution case in as much as, firstly, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix is a minor. Secondly, there is no eye-witness. In fact, it is a case where the allegation of rape has been falsely alleged against the applicant as a case of “revenge rape” in as much as the elder brother of the prosecutrix was convicted for cutting the right hand from the wrist of the applicant and as such, it has been submitted that in order to take revenge for conviction of her own brother she had made the false allegation.
As regards the minority, what we have noted is that the date of birth of the prosecutrix has been shown as 16.02.1998 as per the Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. Though the doctor who examined her, stated that the prosecutrix is aged above 18 years at the time of examination, the examination was done after about 7 months of the incident. Thus, it does not conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was not a minor which of course as a tentative view can be finally examined at the time of final hearing.
The applicant also admitted in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the prosecutrix used to visit his house and it is a case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix used to visit the applicant's house on being called by his wife who also happens to be her own sister to help her in the household chores.
Under the circumstances, we are of the view that while the matter deserves further
Page No.# 3/3
scrutiny of this Court, we are not inclined at this stage to grant bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the present application praying for grant of bail to the applicant is declined.
Sd/- Arun Dev Choudhury Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act who alleges false prosecution and doubts about the victim's minority.
Whether the medical examination of the prosecutrix conclusively establishes she was not a minor.
Whether the relationship between the prosecutrix and the applicant's family calls for exceptional scrutiny in bail proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bitul Mohan @ Singh
The State of Assam
N. Kotiswar Singh
Arun Dev Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
