The court granted bail based on the victim's acknowledgment of a consensual relationship and lack of evidence tampering concerns, despite serious charges against the petitioner.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l)/6 - Bail application - Accused charged with abduction and repeated rape of a minor - Court finds that victim had a consensual relationship with the accused and did not report any coercion at the time of the incident - Bail granted due to lack of apprehension of influencing evidence and the lengthy trial process. (Paras 4, 9, 10)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the nature of the accusations, the relationship between the parties, and the potential for tampering with evidence - In this case, the victim's statements indicated a consensual relationship, reducing the risk of evidence tampering. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aged 22, was arrested for allegedly abducting and raping a 17-year-old victim. The victim's father lodged the FIR after she voluntarily left with the petitioner. The victim later indicated in her statements that she had a consensual relationship with the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the victim or tampering with evidence, as the victim had previously acknowledged her relationship with the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues involved whether the relationship was consensual and the implications of the victim's statements on the charges against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the victim's prior relationship with the petitioner and her failure to report coercion indicated that the case may not warrant the severe charges initially laid against the petitioner, leading to the granting of bail.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.207/2023 registered at Police Station Badnor, Dist. Beawar, for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n)of IPC and Sections 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act.

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

3. Prosecution’s case in brief is that the petitioner forcibly abducted and committed rape repeatedly on the victim- ‘P’ who is aged about 17 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 22 years is in judicial custody. Learned counsel submitted that the victim- ‘P’ on 20.09.2023 voluntarily went away with the present petitioner. The father of the victim- ‘P’ thereafter lodged the present FIR. Pursuant to the present FIR, when the victim- ‘P’ was discovered by the Investigating Agency she has roped the petitioner in a false criminal case by stating that on the date of the alleged incident, she was forcibly abducted by the petitioner on a motorbike and thereafter, he had repeatedly committed rape upon her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements of the victim- ‘P’ have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court wherein she has stated that she knew the petitioner for about 8 months prior to filing of the FIR and was in a constant touch with him through mobile phone. In the statements, victim- ‘P’ has also stated that while she was in the company of the present petitioner, she had travelled with him to Nasik using public transportation and there she had also worked as a labourer with him.

6. Learned counsel contended that the statements of the victim- ‘P’ clearly indicate that the present case is that of consensual relationship between two individuals which is being attempted to be given a colour of criminal offences, when the victim- ‘P’ was traced pursuant to the FIR dated 21.09.2023 lodged by her father.

7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the statements of the victim- ‘P’ have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court as PW.1 and therefore, now, there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing her or tampering with the evidence. This Court further prima facie finds that the petitioner and victim- ‘P’ were having an old acquaintance and while the victim- ‘P’ was in the company of the present petitioner, she despite having ample opportunities, did not inform anyone about the factum of she being forcibly abducted or subjected to forcible sexual assault-rape by the present petitioner and rather admitted to her consensual relationship with him. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Omprakash @ Kalu S/o Late Sayarlal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.207/2023 registered at Police Station Badnor, Dist. Beawar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

11. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document