The court emphasized that the protection of minors is paramount and serious allegations of sexual offenses necessitate strict scrutiny against granting bail to accused, considering the trauma inflicted on the victim.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 376D, 506, and 34 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Bail applications for the accused in a case of gang rape and subsequent blackmailing of a minor - The FIR alleges continuous exploitation of the minor by multiple accused, including coercion via explicit video - The accused's role was defined, and the victim's mental trauma was emphasized - The gravity of the offenses and potential for influencing witnesses prevent bail at this stage (Paras 1, 6, 10, 14, and 15)

(B) Factors for grant of bail - The court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation and the severity of potential punishment - Given the heinous nature of crimes against minors, strict scrutiny is warranted (Paras 10 and 15).

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix, a 17-year-old girl, alleged she was raped and blackmailed by the accused, leading to a pregnancy that was medically terminated. The FIR established unequivocal involvement of the accused, supported by the victim's statements.

Findings of Court:
Bail applications were dismissed due to the serious nature of the allegations, the risk of evidence tampering, and the psychological trauma inflicted on the victim.

Issues: Whether the accused should be granted bail given the severity of the charges and existing evidence against them.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found no justification for bail considering the serious crimes and the minor's vulnerability; the potential for witness tampering and severity of punishment under the POCSO Act were significant factors.

Result: Bail applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of facts and implications for minor victims. (Para 2 , 8 , 11)
2. arguments regarding bail applications and identity of accused. (Para 4 , 5 , 14)
3. considerations of the heinous nature of the crime. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 15)
4. court's decision on bail applications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The present applications have been filed with a prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.427/2018 registered at Police Station Mehrauli under Sections 376, 376D, 506 and 34 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. The facts leading to the registration of the present FIR are as follows:

i. The complainant/prosecutrix states that she is a 17 year old girl studying in 9th Standard and that she was residing with her mother who was working as a house maid.

ii. It is stated that the prosecutrix met accused Suraj in 5th Standard through the Petitioner Lal Mohammed and his sister-in-law/Hasina Khatoon. It is stated that they developed a friendship and he used to take her for walks. The FIR further states that mutual friendship developed. It is stated that 2-3 months into their friendship, Suraj took her to Inderpuri forest post school hours and raped her.

iii. It is stated that Suraj took explicit videos of the prosecutrix and then compelled her to come to the forest again where after raping the prosecutrix, the friends of Suraj, namely, Rohit, Sachin, Anurag, Atul @ Lal Mohammad arrived at the spot.

iv. It is stated that they blackmailed the prosecutrix by showing her explicit videos of herself and threatened to circulate and upload them on the internet if she did not have intercourse with all of them.

v. It is stated that this began a continuous sequence of exploitation of the prosecutrix and that all the five persons mentioned in the FIR, including the petitioner herein, ravaged her after blackmailing her.

vi. It is stated that despite resistance shown by the prosecutrix to meet Suraj, he would send letters through children and demanded to meet her. Further, when the prosecutrix resisted meeting him, he sent letters where he would threaten the prosecutrix with horrific consequences, namely that he would upload her videos and would kidnap her younger sister.

vii. It is stated that in March 2018, the prosecutrix missed her menstrual cycle and realized that something was amiss. It is stated that she gathered strength from her peers at school and informed her mother of these events of collective exploitation. Accordingly, the present FIR was lodged.

viii. The prosecutrix was thereafter sent to AIIMS hospital for a complete medical examination and medical counselling was done for the victim.

ix. After the relevant examination was done, it was found that the prosecutrix had been impregnated and permission was sought for the medical termination of her pregnancy. It was done on 14.07.2018 after obtaining court orders.

x. The Section 164 CrPC statement was recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts on 18.07.2018. The statement under Section 164 CrPC matches with Section 161 CrPC statement of the prosecutrix and from the contents of the FIR and there is no discrepancy in any of the above statements.

xi. The Petitioners were arrested on 10.07.2018. During investigation, the mobile phones of all the accused persons were seized by the Police, their call records were analysed and were sent for FSL examination. It was also found that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of registering the FIR was 17 years which had been verified via her school records. Chargesheet was filed on 18.09.2018 and charges have been framed.

xii. The petitioners' application for regular bail was dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2021 by the learned Trial Court stating that the role of the petitioner has been clearly defined and the accusation has been specifically attributed to the petitioner, given that with the severity of the offence and the duration of continuous exploitat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document