The importance of cooperation with the investigation and precedents where bail was granted in cases involving a consensual relationship with a minor.

ORDER :

Wanlura Diengdoh, J.

1. On 06.05.2020, an FIR was lodged by the complainant before the Officer-In-charge Khliehriat Women Police Station with the information that her daughter on complaint of sickness was taken for a medical examination at the Khliehriat CHC upon which she came to know that her daughter was two months pregnant and on enquiry, it was learned that it was on account of a physical relationship she had with the petitioner herein in the month of February 2020. Hence the complaint.

2. As the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of Jowai Police Station, West Jaintia Hills District, the matter was referred thereto upon which a case was registered being Jowai P.S. Case No. 45 (5) 2020 under Section 5 (j) (ii)/6 of the POCSO Act.

3. Investigation was launched and the I/O had taken the statement of the Complainant and the Doctor. In the meantime, the petitioner herein had obtained an order of interim bail from the Court of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO) Jowai and as directed by the Court, he appeared before the I/O who has also taken down his statement.

4. However, in course of the proceedings, the learned Special Judge (POCSO) vide order dated 11.06.2020 rejected the prayer for grant of pre- arrest bail by the petitioner and accordingly, the I/O sought to arrest him in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner then approached this Court with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and on admission of the same, this Court had granted interim bail to him pending production of the case dairy and further hearing.

6. On the case dairy being duly produced and after hearing the parties, this Court has adjudicated the matter and the decision is arrived at, which is now reflected in this instant order.

7. Heard Mr. B. Laitmon, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that the petitioner is a 19 year old Class XII Science Student of St. Edmunds College with a meritorious record and the alleged victim is also a student of ATS School. The petitioner and the alleged victim are family friends and are acquainted with each other and had admittedly entered into a consensual physical relationship.

8. The learned Counsel has also submitted that when the alleged victim complained about having abdominal pain and was medically examined to confirm that she was about two months pregnant, reluctantly, on being threaten with legal action by the authorities, the mother of the alleged victim was compelled to file the complaint which is evident from the fact that the FIR was lodged very belatedly.

9. As to the age of the alleged victim, the learned counsel has submitted that she is not 15 years as alleged but as can be seen from the document annexed at Annexure-X of the application, which is the report of Woodland Hospital under the column "age", the same is noted as 18 years as on 01.06.2020.

10. Again, the learned counsel has submitted that when the petitioner was summoned by the Police on 13.05.2020, he went to the Police Station and had co-operated with the investigation and as such, on this ground alone, he is entitled to pre-arrest bail. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (AIR 2011 SC 312) at paragraph 89.

11. Another point of argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the possibility of the case either being charge sheeted or landing the petitioner in conviction is bleak considering that the mitigating and extenuating circumstances are in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner and the alleged victim are now cohabiting together willfully as husband and wife with the knowledge and consent of the family and as such, the arrest of the petitioner will result in great injustice and will cause suffering to the alleged victim and the unborn child. Again the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) at paragraph 86 as well as the case of Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr., A