Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Raghav Yadav @ Manoj @ Anurag - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2587 of 2021
Decided On : 29-04-2022
Key Points: - A minor's consent to sexual activity has no legal validity, and such offenses are treated with utmost seriousness (!) (!) (!) . - The court found no ground for bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the victim’s minor status (!) (!) . - The cumulative evidence and victim statements, considered in light of the minor’s age, necessitate a thorough trial to determine factual issues (!) (!) . - The bail application was dismissed, as the court held that only a trial could properly address the substantive issues raised (!) . - The judgment relies on precedent emphasizing the minor’s status and the invalidity of consent in such cases (!) .
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No. 241/2018 under Section 363/366/368/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station Gazi Pur.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 19.06.2018, complainant who is the father of the victim, visited the Police Station Ghazipur, regarding missing of his 16 and half year-old daughter 'N' and got recorded his statement stating that his 16 and half year old daughter namely 'N', whose height is 5'2, complexion fair, built medium, face round, hair black, wearing white colour T-shirt, black colour pajayami and blue colored slippers has been missing since 16.06.2018. On the basis of statement of complainant (Father of the victim), the present case was registered vide FIR No. 241/2018, and the investigation went underway.
3. During the course of investigation, the missing information was lodged on WT Message, MPS, DMPU, NCRB, Akashwani, PRO Delhi Police for publication to trace out the missing girl child. Subsequently, during further investigation, the complainant stated that he has strong suspicion over one boy namely Raghav @ Manoj @ Anurag (Petitioner herein) who used to come to his house and raised apprehension that Raghav would have coaxed away his daughter "N". Search for the missing girl child was made at the residence of accused/petitioner Raghav @ Manoj @ Anurag but no clue was found regarding the victim as well as accused/petitioner.
4. On 23.03.2019, A PCR Call vide DD No- 60 A was received in police station regarding quarrel and the same was marked to ASI Vinod Pal and on receipt of said call ASI Vinod Pal reached there. Complainant (father of the victim) stated that the petitioner was having an argument with his neighbours and also stated that the petitioner had taken away his daughter. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by ASI Shivom (I.O of the case) and recovered the victim girl from the custody of the petitioner. On the same day i.e., 23.03.2019, statement of victim 'N' under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
5. Thereafter, the medical examination of the victim was conducted vide MLC No. 152/2019 at LBS Hospital and she was counselled at LBS Hospital by NGO. After recovering the victim Sections 376 IPC and 6 POCSO Act were added and the investigation went underway. On 25.03.2019, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim 'N' was recorded. The victim was sent to observation home by CWC members and subsequently, Sections 368/366 IPC were also added.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the status report filed by the state.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a young boy of 24 years and is in judicial custody since 23.03.2019 and has undergone more than two years and ten months. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the relationship between the victim and petitioner was consensual and the victim was a consenting party as the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not made any allegations against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the victim and the petitioner neither lived together nor did they visit any places as alleged by the victim. It is further submitted that the victim was not recovered at the instance of petitioner and the petitioner has no role to play. Lastly, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and no purpose will be served by keeping him in judicial custody.
8. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and has argued on the lines of the status report. It is submitted by the learned APP for the State that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and the victim was minor on the date of the incident. It i
The seriousness of the allegations and the pending testimony of the victim's parents were key factors in denying the bail application.
The seriousness of the allegations, cooperation in the investigation, and verification of the victim's age are crucial factors in considering anticipatory bail applications.
Consent to accompany, wander or to have dinner and to stay in a room does not, in all eventuality, amount that there is consent of a girl or woman to have sexual intercourse.
Bail – Courts have favoured release of young offenders on bail pending trial so that regressive influences of jail environment can be avoided and keeping in mind principle of best interest.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
