The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the necessity for custodial interrogation and the willingness of the applicant to cooperate with the investigation in granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, considering the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation and the absence of internal or external injuries on the prosecutrix, and directed the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and abide by specified conditions.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving abduction and rape of a 17-year-old prosecutrix. The applicant claimed to have been falsely implicated and highlighted a counter FIR lodged against the prosecutrix's family members.
Finding of the Court:

The court found merit in the applicant's contentions, noting discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statement and the absence of injuries. It granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation and the applicant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the allegations, the necessity for custodial interrogation, and the applicant's potential risk to the prosecutrix and society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of injuries on the prosecutrix, discrepancies in statements, and the applicant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant and imposing specified conditions for release.

ORDER : – They are heard. Perused the case diary/challan papers.

2. This is applicant’s first application under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as the present applicant is apprehending his/her arrest in connection with Crime No. 226/2022 registered at Police Station Manavar, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under sections 363, 376(2)(k), 376(2)(f), 376(d) and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under section 3 read with section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as the POCSO Act).

3. The allegation against the applicant is that of abduction and rape with the prosecutrix aged around 17 years and 6 months.

4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case by the family members of the prosecutrix, which is apparent from the fact that on 3-3-2022 itself (which is also the date of incident), the FIR was lodged by the applicant against the family members of the prosecutrix at Crime No. 225/2022, for offence under sections 294, 323 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the prosecutrix’s brother Sanjay came to the house of his sister Rina w/o Ban Singh and started assaulting them on the ground that his sister (the prosecutrix) is missing and the applicant must be knowing about her whereabouts.

5. It is submitted that the applicant and his companions were also badly thrashed by the prosecutrix’s family members, whereas, in the FIR lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix’s father, it is clearly mentioned by him, that his daughter is missing since 5O’clock in the evening and it was also mentioned that his son Sanjay has also accompanied him to lodge the aforesaid FIR to the Police Station, whereas in the statement of the prosecutrix, it is alleged that when the applicant was committing rape with her, her brother Sanjay came on the spot and also saw them and after seeing him, the applicant ran away from the spot, threatening the prosecutrix of dire consequences. And as she was scared, she went to her sister’s house.

6. Counsel has submitted that had it been a case where Sanjay, brother of the prosecutrix, had seen the applicant along with the prosecutrix committing rape on her, there was no reason for him not to inform this fact to his father and to the Police when he had also accompanied his father on 3-3-2022 to lodge missing person report regarding his sister.

7. Counsel has submitted that the applicant is a young boy, aged 19 years old and is a student, although it is not mentioned as to in which class he is presently studying. It is submitted that if the applicant is arrested in this offence, his entire career would be jeopardized and an irreparable injury shall be caused to him as also to the reputation of his family. Thus, it is submitted that when the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation, his custodial interrogation is not necessary. Counsel has further submitted that the applicant is ready to abide by all the conditions, as may be imposed by this Court. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

8. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is only 17 years and 6 months and a case under the provisions of the POCSO Act has been registered against the applicant, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

9. Having considered the rival submissions and on a close scrutiny of the case diary as also the documents filed by the applicant on record, this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant and in such circumstances, when the prosecutrix herself had gone to her sister’s house, who had also not informed about her presence in her house to the father of the prosecutrix, and as per MLC of the prosecutrix, no internal or external injuries have been fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document