Consistency of the prosecutrix's statement and her age below 16 years are crucial factors in bail applications for offences under Section 376Da IPC and Section 5g/6 of the POCSO act, 2012.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 51/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila, Srigangangar for the offences punishable under Section 376Da IPC and Section 5g/6 of the POCSO act, 2012. He has preferred second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the first bail application bearing SBCRLMB No.9075/2021 was dismissed, as withdrawn, by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.07.2021, while giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application, after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix.

2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the present second bail application has been preferred, as the statement, not only of the prosecutrix (PW-1), but also of her mother (PW-2) as well as seven other witnesses, were recorded before the learned trial court.

2.2 Learned counsel harped upon the fact that the mother of the prosecutrix happens to be a habitual blackmailer, as several cases have been lodged against her in different police stations, with the allegation that she used to blackmail the persons; further the mother of the prosecutrix had lodged several cases against those persons, while changing her identity and name for the said purpose of falsely implicating them in the concerned case.

2.3 Learned counsel also harped upon the delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident in question allegedly happened on 10.02.2021, where the FIR was lodged on 14.02.2021, which on the face of it appears to be an afterthought and thus the present FIR is nothing but a document containing concocted version, so as to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case; this is more so, in view of the established fact of the mother of the prosecutrix being an habitual blackmailer, as indicated above.

2.4 Learned counsel however, submits that though the testimony of certain material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded, but keeping into consideration the fact that the present accused-petitioner, who is a young boy aged 21 years, is in custody since 05.03.2021, and the charge-sheet in this case has already been filed, so also the fact that the trial is likely to take a long time, the indulgence of bail may be granted to the present petitioner.

2.5 Learned counsel relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & anr., aIR 2017 SC 3457. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Raju @ Rajkumar Gaudh Vs. State of Rajasthan Through P.P., 2017(3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1521.

3. On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State, while vehemently opposing the bail application, submitted that the age of the prosecutix in this case is 16 years, and further, she maintained consistency in her statement regarding the allegations in question.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

5. This Court finds that the prosecutrix remained consistent in her version regarding the alleged incident as well as allegations in question against the present petitioner, and that her age is far too less i.e. below 16 years. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the mother of the prosecutrix is a blackmailer, does not inspire confidence of this Court, at this stage. Moreover, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner. Thus, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner, at this stage.

6. Consequently, the present second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.