Single judge rejected bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a serious sexual offence against a child victim under IPC and POCSO Act, citing gravity and victim's age.
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.
BLAPL No. 240 of 2018
This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with C.T. Case No.870 of 2012 arising out of Soro P.S. Case No.458 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 341/376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Soro which was rejected on 03.01.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim’s statement was recorded for the first time five years after the occurrence and therefore, there is every chance of tutoring to the said witness to depose falsely against the petitioner. He further submitted that even if the alleged incidence took place on 17.10.2012 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.10.2012 but the doctor examining the victim on 19.10.2012 indicates that there is no bodily injury suggestive of sexual intercourse and the clothes of the victim also did not indicate any physical clue relating to the sexual offence and therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim was aged about seven years at the time of occurrence and she was found in a senseless condition near a bush with injury and when she got back her sense, she disclosed
2
about the commission of rape by the petitioner which is apparent from the statement of the mother of the victim and to that effect also the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim on 19.10.2012. He further submitted that even if the victim’s statement was recorded at a belated stage but there is no such distinction between the initial story which was presented in the F.I.R., the statements of the parents of the victim and also as per the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim. He further submitted that the medical examination report also indicates that the victim was aged about 6 to 9 years at the time of her medical examination on 19.10.2012 and therefore, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner.
skb
It appears that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.07.2017 and the charge sheet has already been submitted. In view of the materials available on record, nature and gravity of the accusation, particularly the age of the victim, her statement and statements of her parents, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed.
The learned trial Court shall do well to expedite the trial and at the first instance take steps for examination of the victim. The petitioner is at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after the examination of the victim before the learned trial Court.
………………….. S. K. Sahoo, J.
3
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is maintainable despite belated recording of victim's statement in a serious sexual offence against a minor.
Whether the nature of injury or lack of physical clue justifies granting bail in a POCSO case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner
State
S. K. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
