The court emphasized that consent from a minor is legally irrelevant in sexual offences, particularly in heinous cases, thus denying bail to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 38/2024 dated 22.08.2024 registered at Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ), 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’). The police have filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation. The petitioner is not required for investigation, and no recovery is to be made from him. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. He is the only bread-earning member of the family. His mother is an aged widow. The petitioner has taken a loan from a financial institution, and it is difficult for him to repay the loan; hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim had met with an accident and was undergoing treatment at IGMC. The doctor informed her brother that she was pregnant. He made inquiries and the victim revealed that the petitioner had raped her. She was 17½ (seventeen and a half years) old at the time of the incident. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The victim stated in her statement recorded under Section 183(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita that the petitioner had raped her 4-5 times in his home. He took her to his home in July 2024 and also took her to a hotel, where he raped her. The police arrested the petitioner. The police seized the visitor register from the hotel. The victim was born on 07.01.2007. She was aged 17 years, 08 months and 15 days on the date of the incident. The result from FSL is awaited. The challan has been filed and presented before the Court on 16.10.2024. The charges were framed on 23.01.2025, and the matter was listed for recording the victim’s statement on 27.02.2025, hence the status report.

3. I have heard Ms. Ruchika Khachi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

4. Ms Ruchika Khachi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The relationship between the parties, if any, was consensual. She prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. She relied upon the judgment of this Court in Virender Singh versus State of H.P. , 2021 SCC Online HP 280 , in support of her submission.

5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had impregnated a minor child, which is a heinous offence. The statement of the victim is still to be recorded, and the petitioner would intimidate her in case of his release on bail, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 :2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: -

“Relevant parameters for granting bail

26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused