Two petitioners appealed for bail in a POCSO and IPC case involving minor victims. The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that consent of a minor is invalid and the allegations warranted rejection at this stage.
Bail applications dismissed; liberty to renew prayer after recording victim's statement.
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. 11803/2022
Devkinandan S/o Madanlal, Resident Of Kustala, Police Station Rawanjna Dungar, Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ( At Present Confined In Distt. Jail Sawai Madhopur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14835/2022
Chhotulal Son Of Kesar Lal, Resident Of Village Sawaiganj, P.s. Ravanjana Dungar, Tehsil And Distirct Sawaimadhopur (Raj.) ( At Present Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain Mr. Girish Khandelwal Mr. Dharmendra Sharma Mr. Jaley Singh Mr. Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP Mr. Ashindra Gautam
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
06/12/2022
Both these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of petitioners in connection with FIR No.71/2022, registered at Police Station Rawanjna Dungar, District Sawaimadhopur, wherein they are charged for the offences
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-11803/2022]
punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376DA, 354A and 344 IPC and Sections 5/6, 11/12 and 16/17 of the POCSO Act.
Counsel for the petitioners submit that there are contradictions in the statements of the victim. Counsel submit that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has levelled allegation of committing rape against Prem Prakash, who has already been granted indulgence of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, hence, the same indulgence may be extended to the petitioners.
Per contra, learned PP assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail applications and submitted that the specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner Devkinandan. They further submit that the victim is minor and the consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of law. They further submit that the case of the petitioners is distinguishable with the case of co-accused Prem Prakash, hence, the petitioners are not entitled to get bail.
Heard. Considered the rival submissions.
Looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioners by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and looking to the fact that the consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of law, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the bail applications filed by the petitioners are dismissed.
However, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after recording the statement of the victim.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-11803/2022]
The trial Court is expected to record the statements of the
victim on priority basis.
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected case file.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /41-42
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners charged under POCSO and IPC offences given the victim is a minor.
Whether the bail grant to a co-accused Prem Prakash extends to the current petitioners.
10 provisions across 3 enactments
Devkinandan
Chhotulal
State Of Rajasthan
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
