The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail must be based on relevant considerations, and the heinous nature of the offence, statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, and the accused's post-release conduct can warrant bail cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Advocate, Mr. Thakur, waives for Respondent No.3-original accused.

1. At the outset, relevant it would be to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Bhagwan Singh vs. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak And Another’, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1059, recording that ‘Rape’ is a heinous crime and a blow on the dignity of women. The relevant observations made by the Apex Court at Paragraph-18 thereof, reads thus;

“18. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be a onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of " OTHER LANGUAGE

(where women are respected Gods live there) would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by process of law or accused persons are allowed to move around freely in the society or in spite of there being prima facie material being present they are allowed to move around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or inducing them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice system, then the superior court will have to necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to erroneous orders being passed by courts below.”

2. By way of this petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief, ‘the Code’), the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 22.09.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge [POCSO], City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (‘the trial Court’, herein after), in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6584 of 2022, whereby, the trial Court released the original accused-Respondent No.3, herein, on regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 376(3) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, in short), and Sections 4, 5(L), 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in brief, ‘POCSO Act’).

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the original complainant-Petitioner, herein, lodged an FIR, being C.R. No. 11191040221676 of 2022 with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 376(3) and 506(2) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(L), 6 and 12 of the the POCSO Act, wherein, she has stated that she is residing at the address mentioned in the FIR along with her two sons and a daughter the victim, who happens to be her adopted daughter and who is the youngest amongst the siblings, whereas, her husband has passed away about nine years before the alleged incident. It is, further, stated that, at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 12 years. It is stated that the victim also has a separate cell phone of her own. It is, further, stated in the FIR that, since, the economical condition of the house of Respondent No.3-the accused is not good, she had hired the accused-Respondent No.3 for doing miscellaneous work before about five months of the alleged offence.

3.1 It is stated in the FIR that on 13.07.2022, the younger son of the Petitioner, namely Aniket, suddenly woke-up at late night and found that the victim was not present on her bed and he also heard some noises near the staircase of their house and when, the petitioner and her son went near the staircase, they found that Respondent No.3-accused was trying to remove the clothes of the victim. However, on seeing the petitioner and her son, Respondent No.3 fled from the scene.

3.2 According to the petitioner, when she inquired about the same from the victim, the victim told her that Respondent No.3-accused had met her on 25.06.2022 and he had been following her ever since with a view to allure her. The victim also informed the petitioner that Respondent No.3 had obtained her cell phone number and about four days prior to the alleged incident of 13.07.2022, Respondent No.3-accused told the victim that he would saw her some video game on t