Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Rohit Kumar Jha And Other - Appellant
Versus
The State And Other - Respondent
Bail Application No. 3406 of 2021
Decided On : 01-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. V. Govinda Ramanan, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Asha Tiwari, APP for State with W/SI Athine, SV Rohit Kumar Jha, for the Respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the age and consent of the prosecutrix, coercion, and manipulation of official documents are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail in cases involving sexual offences against minors.

Headnote:
BAIL - CRIMINAL LAW - Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 - FIR No.275/2021, PS Jafrabad - Sections 366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 - [S Varadarajan versus State of Madras' AIR 1965 SC 942, Ranjit Rajbanshi versus The State of West Bengal and Others' a verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A No. 458 of 2018, Rakesh S/o Ambaram versus State of M.P., Vaibhav Bhaskar Kole versus State of Maharashtra, Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav versus State of Maharashtra, Dadu alias Sushant Sunil Kamble versus State of Maharashtra, Rajoo and Ors. versus State of M.P., Sunil Mahadev Patil versus State of Maharashtra] - The court discussed the applicant's prayer for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in relation to FIR No.275/2021, PS Jafrabad under Sections 366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The court analyzed the facts and evidence presented, including the status report, statements of the prosecutrix, and various legal precedents. The court found that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and had been coerced into sexual relations by the applicant. The court also considered the manipulation of the prosecutrix's date of birth in official documents. Based on these findings, the court concluded that there was no ground for the grant of bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in relation to FIR No.275/2021, PS Jafrabad under Sections 366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The applicant claimed that the prosecutrix was a major and that their relations were consensual. The status report and statements of the prosecutrix revealed allegations of coercion, threats, and manipulation of official documents.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and had been coerced into sexual relations by the applicant. The court also considered the manipulation of the prosecutrix's date of birth in official documents. Based on these findings, the court concluded that there was no ground for the grant of bail to the applicant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the age and consent of the prosecutrix, coercion, and manipulation of official documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and had been coerced into sexual relations by the applicant. The manipulation of the prosecutrix's date of birth in official documents also played a significant role in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was declined by the court.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. - The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in relation to FIR No.275/2021, PS Jafrabad under Sections 366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 submitting to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and that the relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix were wholly consensual. Inter alia it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that no offence whatsoever in terms of the POCSO enactment is made out against the applicant, in as much as, the prosecutrix was a major as per her documents with her date of birth being 10.10.2002.

2. Inter alia it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the photographs of the prosecutrix which show the marriage between the prosecutrix and the applicant which have been placed on record reflect clearly the happy state of mind of the prosecutrix when she married the applicant and that the documents do not lie and clearly show that none of the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 366/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 are made out in any manner.

3. Notice of the application was issued to the State. The status report dated 26.09.2021 under the signatures of the SHO, PS Jafrabad has been submitted whereby, it has been submitted that the FIR was registered at PS Jafrabad on a written complaint of Ms.R in which she stated that Rohit (the present applicant) who was the friend of her brother, used to visit their residence and had forced her to accept the friend request on the Facebook one year ago. This FIR is indicated to have been registered on 17.07.2021 and the date of occurrence through the FIR having been put forth as being 10.04.2021.

4. It has been submitted through the status report that thereafter, the applicant and the prosecutrix exchanged their phone numbers and started contacting each other and that the applicant took the victim to Connaught Place and took their photographs together and threatened her that he would make her photographs viral and threatened to kill her father and brother if she did not marry him and on 08.04.2021, the applicant allegedly forcibly took the prosecutrix to the Arya Samaj Mandir, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and married her and on the same day she was sent to her parents' home.

5. As per the averments made in the FIR, on the date 10.04.2021, the applicant called her and took her to House no. C-117, Room No. 15, Third Floor, Gali no.20, Khajuri Khas, Delhi and had made forcible physical relations with her without her consent and after two-three days again, the applicant took her to the same place and again had physical relations with her without her consent. As per the status report, on inquiry in relation thereto is indicated to have been conducted by the CIC, Counsellor and the victim was counselled and her statement was recorded in the presence of her mother. The prosecutrix is indicated to have been sent to the JPC Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi in the custody of W/HC Sunita, No.1868/NE along with the counsellor and her parents and her medical examination was conducted vide MLC No. 137/2021 wherein, she and her mother declined to get any internal medical examination conducted.

6. As per the said status report, during the course of the investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 by the learned MM (Reliever), KKD Courts, Delhi wherein she supported her initial statement and the prosecutrix also provided her birth certificate issued by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation in which her date of birth was put forth as being 07.07.2004 which was verified by the issuing authority and the marriage certificate of the applicant and the prosecutrix in relation to their marriage solemnized on 08.04.2021 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Kashmere Gate, Delhi was also verified from the concerned authority.It has been su