SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 972

SANDEEP MEHTA
Vikas – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. M.S. Soni, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Sudhir Tak, P.P, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. The instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner Vikas S/o Indraj @ Indra Ram, who is in custody in connection with the F.I.R. No.154/2021 registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. The age of the victim is bordering 18 years. In her statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 as well as 164 CrPC, she categorically stated that she was deeply involved in a love affair with the present petitioner. Her family members wanted to marry her elsewhere and thus, she herself called the petitioner and went away with him. They contracted marriage in a temple, whereafter sexual relations were established between them with consent. Even in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the girl stated that she wanted to continue her relationship with the present petitioner.

4. In this background and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to gran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top