The willingness of the victim in the marriage and the impact of the petitioner's custody on the victim and their children were crucial in the court's decision to grant bail.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - Kidnapping, Rape, and POCSO Act - Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of kidnapping and raping a minor girl, resulting in her pregnancy. The victim's statement indicated that she willingly married the petitioner and they had two children together.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner and the victim were happily cohabiting and raising their family, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required. The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the satisfaction that keeping him in custody would drive the prosecutrix and her two children to starvation.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of the accusation, the willingness of the victim in the marriage, and the impact of the petitioner's custody on the victim and their children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner and the victim were happily married and raising a family together as a ground enough to release the petitioner on bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions to ensure his availability and compliance with the legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Section 439 CrPC praying for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 107/2017 registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar for offences under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

2. Briefly stated, a missing complaint was registered on 13.05.2017 where the complaint was given by the father of the victim i.e. Lal Chandra Maurya that his minor daughter has been kidnapped and she had been missing and last seen details were given in the complaint. Investigation was completed and did not result in a fruitful outcome.

3. It is stated that on 01.12.2020, the victim telephoned her mother stating that she had delivered a baby boy who was three months old and she revealed that she had been married for the last four years. This information was passed on to the Police, who landed in Madhya Pradesh to trace the young girl/victim. The Police with the assistance of the local Police tracked down and recovered the young girl on 02.12.2020.

4. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital for conducting medical examination which she refused. The prosecutrix was brought back to Delhi from Madhya Pradesh. Later the victim's statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded on 03.12.2020. On 04.12.2020, the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

5. The Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim was recorded where she stated that she lived with her parents and she ran away from home. It is stated that she met the petitioner at the Agra Railway Station whereafter she accompanied the petitioner and went to his village and got married to the petitioner. She also stated that she has a three year old daughter and a three month's old infant.

6. The Police after verifying the school records found that the date of birth of the victim was 02.03.2001 and, therefore, amended the charges against the petitioner and added offences under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Child Marriages Act.

7. Chargesheet stands filed. The petitioner approached District Court, Muraina applying for anticipatory bail. On 21.12.2020, the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner was arrested on 22.12.2020 by the Police.

8. On 24.12.2020, the DNA test of the children of the petitioner and the victim has been conducted. The victim produced birth certificates of her daughter.

9. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court on 08.04.2021 stating that the petitioner kidnapped the then minor victim, took her to his native village and repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her which resulted in the victim getting pregnant as a minor. The court observed that the offence was a serious one which involved the exploitation of a minor.

10. Heard Mr. Mohammad Shamikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned APP for the State and perused the material on record.

11. Mr. Mohammad Shamikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim herself in her statement before the Magistrate has recorded that she ran away from her house out of her will and that she met the petitioner at the railway station and later married to the petitioner after taking the blessing of the members of his family. He submits that the petitioner and the victim already had two children who would be rendered absolutely destitute if the petitioner is not enlarged on bail as he is the sole earning member of the family and he has already been in custody of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose for investigation as investigation stand completed.

12. Per contra, Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, learned APP submits that the petitioner has been accused of a heinous offence where he kidnapped a minor girl and later raped her and made her pregnant. She submits that the punishments for the offences the petitioner has been charged wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document