The main legal point established in the judgment is the gravity of allegations related to sexual exploitation, blackmail, abuse, and financial exploitation, and the court's consideration of the legal provisions under the IPC and the POCSO Act in reaching its decision.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 104/2021 under Sections 354/376/384/506/509/417/467/471 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station Neb Sarai.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix Ms."S" who in her complaint alleged that Pappu Kumar Thakur (present petitioner) had committed wrongful acts with her and sexually exploited her when she was a minor child of 13 years. She further alleged that petitioner has been exploiting her for the last ten years and has blackmailed her, abused her, gave beatings to her, threatened her to make her photos viral and also, sent some photos of the prosecutrix to her office staff. Subsequently, the prosecutrix got married to petitioner on 11.07.2018 but the petitioner continued to threaten the proescutrix, exploit her, abuse her and also, abused her parents. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that the petitioner got prepared a fake Voter ID Card in her name in which her name was mentioned as 'Sarita'. Furthermore, the petitioner also got transferred a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 54,000/- from the account of the prosecutrix into his account, used her credit card and even failed to pay the bills of credit card. It is further alleged that the petitioner was already married and has two children but he gave false assurances to the prosecutrix by stating that he had given divorce to his first wife.

3. During investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at AIIMS hospital vide MLC No. 2997/2021 wherein she stated that she got married with petitioner on 11.07.2018 and they have been having physical relations since then. The petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2021.

4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the state assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant, perused the Status Report and also perused the records of this case.

5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of about 5 months in the registration of the FIR because the complaint was given by the victim/prosecutrix at police station on 27.10.2020 and the FIR was registered in this case on 26.03.2021. He further submitted that as per record the date of birth of the victim is 21.08.1995, so on the date of filing of complaint with the police station she had already attained majority, hence section 6 of the POCSO Act is not attracted in the present case.

6. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that prosecutrix went to Patna, Bihar on 30.05.2020 after sale of some property by the petitioner to get money from him and they even lived together from 04.06.2020 to 07.07.2020. He further submitted that the victim was already aware that petitioner was already married and having two children and he also referred to the copy of MOU dated 11.02.2020 entered into between the parties. He further submitted that the petitioner is in J.C. since 26.03.2021 and the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets have already been filed.

7. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the victim got married on 11.07.2018 and the copy of certificate of registration of marriage is on record. He further submitted that petitioner is a barber whereas victim got a job in a Bank and, therefore, due to subsequent difference in status between them and differences in their personalities, disputes arose between them, therefore, a false case has been got registered against the petitioner.

8. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that no obscene photo of the victim is on record and disclosing to anyone that the victim was the wife of the petitioner is not an offence. He further submitted that on numerous occasions, petitioner helped the victim financially by giving cash to her. He further