The High Court dismissed the bail application of a petitioner arrested for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The Court refused bail considering the prosecutrix was 14, directing examination after her testimony.
Bail application dismissed; petitioner at liberty to move fresh application after prosecutrix's testimony.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8802/2021
Vakil Son Of Shri Jhuhruddin, Resident Of Raniyaki Police Station Tabdu Distt. Nuh, Hariyana. (Presently Confined Central Jail, Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman, Mr. Liyakat Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini PP Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
28/09/2021
In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
This Court perused the material available on record.
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.410/2020 of Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and Section 5, 6 of POCSO Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the prosecutrix got married, and during such marriage, they also filed a protection petition before the Hon’ble Punjab &
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-8802/2021]
Haryana High Court. Learned counsel also pointed out the affidavit filed by the concerned Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel further pointed out the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRWP No.8098/2020, whereby a partial consent of the prosecutrix has been recorded by the Hon’ble Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the initial statement and in the overall look out, the petitioner had consensual relationship with the prosecutrix.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application on the ground of the prosecutrix being 14 years of age; however, learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the factum of age of the prosecutrix being 14 years.
Taking note of the fact that the age of the prosecutrix is 14 years, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Consequently, the present bail application is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move a fresh bail application after testimony of the prosecutrix. The learned trial court is directed to examine the prosecutrix expeditiously.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
6-skant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with POCSO offences given the prosecutrix's age.
Whether the petitioner's claim of a consensual relationship constitutes grounds for bail in a POCSO case involving a minor.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vakil Son of Shri Jhuhruddin
The State of Rajasthan
Dr. Justice Pusphendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
