Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Rahees - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No.1219 of 2024
Decided On : 14-08-2024
BAIL - PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES - The court denied bail to the applicant, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges under the IPC and the POCSO Act, particularly given the victim's age and the circumstances of her recovery, which indicated the applicant's involvement in the crime. The court highlighted that the applicant's marital status and age did not mitigate the gravity of the offenses committed against a minor, leading to the conclusion that bail was not warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody for serious offenses under IPC and POCSO Act, involving the enticement and sexual exploitation of a 15-year-old girl, who was recovered from the applicant's house after being taken by a co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim, a minor, had been subjected to sexual relations by both the co-accused and the applicant, and her lack of resistance did not absolve the applicant of responsibility. The court noted the serious implications of the charges and the need to protect the victim's interests.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the age of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the serious nature of the offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, combined with the victim's status as a minor, justified the denial of bail, as releasing the applicant could undermine the seriousness of the allegations and the protection of the victim.
Result: The bail application was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 616 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) IPC and Section 3(a)/4, 5 (l)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the co-accused enticed the victim, a young girl on 08.06.2023 and took her alongwith him. She was not traceable when the FIR was lodged. Subsequently, the victim was recovered from the house of the applicant. She revealed that initially, the co-accused took her and established physical relations with her and thereafter, the co-accused handed over the victim to the applicant, who also established physical relations with her on multiple occasions.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co-accused took the victim in the house of the applicant where she stayed for about two months, but she did not raise any alarm. It is also argued that the victim never told the applicant so as to inform her family members. She also never tried to run away from the house of the applicant.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim is 15 years of age. She has supported the prosecution case during trial.
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.
7. On being asked, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is married and he is 26 years of age. Why should the applicant keep a young girl at his house, who is minor? The victim has stated that the co-accused has established physical relations with her and thereafter, handed her over to the applicant, who also established physical relations with her on multiple occasions in his own house. The victim is a minor. The applicant is married person of 26 years of age.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
The court established that in cases involving minors, the victim's consent and relationship dynamics can influence bail decisions, provided that safeguards against potential harm are implemented.
The seriousness of sexual offence charges and the victim's statement are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
The presumption of innocence and the right to bail are fundamental principles in criminal law, particularly at the pre-trial stage, unless there are substantial grounds for denial.
The victim's lack of support for the prosecution case and her statement regarding the medical examination were crucial in the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The court established that in cases involving allegations under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, the context of the relationship between the accused and the victim can influence b....
The court established that in cases involving serious allegations, particularly under the POCSO Act, the gravity of the charges and the victim's testimony are critical factors in determining bail eli....
The court emphasized the importance of individual roles in criminal acts when determining bail eligibility under serious charges.
The court established that inconsistencies in a victim's testimony can significantly impact the decision to grant bail, especially in cases involving serious charges under the IPC and POCSO Act.
Bail – Courts have favoured release of young offenders on bail pending trial so that regressive influences of jail environment can be avoided and keeping in mind principle of best interest.
The decision highlights the consideration of the co-accused's bail and the victim's lack of support for the prosecution case as key factors in granting bail to the applicant.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
