The consensual nature of a relationship and the age of the prosecutrix are crucial factors in considering bail applications in cases involving charges under the POCSO Act.

Headnote:
Bail - Indian Penal Code, 1860, POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 363/376, 4, 8 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC and POCSO Act, highlighting the gravity and nature of the offense, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the age of the prosecutrix. The court considered the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix and granted bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought bail in a case involving charges under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The prosecutrix, aged 17 at the time of the incident, alleged forcible physical relations with the petitioner and the matter was pending trial.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. did not mention any force exerted by the petitioner, and considered the consensual nature of the relationship. The court granted bail with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the gravity and nature of the offense, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the age of the prosecutrix.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prosecutrix's statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the consensual nature of the relationship, and the age of the prosecutrix in granting bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant with specific conditions, including restrictions on leaving the city, making no contact with the prosecutrix or her family, and not attempting to intimidate them.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. - The applicant, vide the present application seeks the grant of bail in relation to FIR no. 91/2019 Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) registered under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. Notice of the application was issued to the State as well as to the prosecutrix in terms of the practice directions dated 24.9.2019 of this Court bearing No.67/Rules/DHC.

3. The status report dated 16.10.2019 had been submitted by the State under signatures of the SHO Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) and the reply on behalf of the prosecutrix through her learned counsel was submitted on 13.1.2020 supported with an affidavit on which the name of prosecutrix is given but signed by the mother of the prosecutrix as well as with an affidavit of the mother of the prosecutrix.

4. The prosecutrix on the date of submission of her affidavit is indicated to be 18 years. The FIR in the instant case is indicated to have been registered on 31.1.2019 at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South) under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. The mother of the prosecutrix in the FIR stated to the effect that her daughter aged 17 years had left home on 31.1.2019 around 1600 hours, that she studied in New Green-Field School, Saket and had been missing since the afternoon. As per the status report, after registration of the FIR during investigation, the victim was searched at various places and all known places but was not traceable and her school records were verified to give forth her date of birth as being 4.2.2001. As on date thus the age of the prosecutrix is 20 years 11 days. Thus on the date of the registration of the FIR on 31.1.2019, the prosecutrix was aged 17 years 11 months and 26 days and just four days short of being an adult. As per the status report submitted by the State the prosecutrix was traced at Mathura, U.P. with the petitioner/applicant herein and thereafter the victim and the petitioner were both brought to Delhi and the petitioner was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded and his medical examination was conducted and he was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. As per the status report it was recorded to the effect:

"That during investigation, statements U/S 164 CrPC of the Victim was recorded on 24.02.2018 wherein the Victim has stated that accused took her to his uncle house in Badarpur and thereafter the accused made physical relationship with her. That again after leaving from there the accused made physical relations with her in Mathura."

6. Charges are indicated to have been framed and the matter is pending trial at the stage of prosecution evidence. The State through its status report and through oral submissions made had submitted that in as much as the petitioner had made physical relations with the minor girl of the age of 17 years and could tamper with the evidence and influence the victim and other witnesses, and thus he be not granted bail.

7. As per the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, dated 3.2.2019, the prosecutrix is alleged to have stated that she is a student, that on 31.1.2019 due to there being a lot of pressure because of her examinations, she had gone to her friend, i.e., the present petitioner a resident of Meethapur, Badarpur, New Delhi and there the petitioner had taken her to his uncle's house at Meethapur and at night at his uncle's house whose name she did not know, the petitioner had had forcible physical relations with her and that on 1.2.2019, the petitioner at about 7:30 p.m. took her from the Tughlaqabad Railway Station to Agra and on the way he had thrown the cloth used at the time of the incident in a canal and they reached Agra by train in the midnight whereafter the petitioner took her to the Shirdi Sai Maharashtra Dharamshala at Mathura where too the petitioner had physical relations with her and the police had tracked them there and had brought the