The presumption of guilt under POCSO is rebuttable, and delays in filing FIR can affect the credibility of allegations, impacting bail decisions.

JUDGMENT

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (‘CrPC’) for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 148/2023 dated 24.02.2203, registered at Police Station Raj Park, for offences under Sections 363/365/342/323/506/376 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (‘ IPC ’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). The chargesheet has Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER BAIL APPLN. 1524/2024 Page 1 of 10 been filed against the applicant for the offences under Sections 363/366A/34/109/323/342/506/376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. The FIR was lodged on a complaint given by the complainant/ prosecutrix on 24.02.2023, alleging that the present applicant and the co-accused person Abhay alias Kaku (both are stated to be brothers), kept her in confinement and established forceful sexual relations with her.

3. It is alleged that on 29.08.2019, when the prosecutrix was 17 years of age, the said accused persons called her to the park to meet her. Upon meeting the said accused persons, it is alleged that the prosecutrix was made to sniff a handkerchief, pursuant to which she became unconscious. When she regained her consciousness, she found that she was completely naked. Thereafter, it is alleged that the co- accused Abhay threatened her by showing a knife. It is alleged that the co-accused Abhay tied the hands and legs of the prosecutrix and locked her in a room. It is alleged that the present applicant and co- accused Abhay continued to establish physical relations with the prosecutrix against her will.

4. One day when the door of the room in which she was confined was ajar, the complainant saw co-accused, namely, Pooja (the mother of the applicant), who took the prosecutrix to the ground floor and called co-accused Sunil (the father of the applicant). It is alleged that they together requested the prosecutrix to not talk about the incident with anyone and promised to drop her home.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER BAIL APPLN. 1524/2024 Page 2 of 10

5. Thereafter, the mother of the prosecutrix was called who consoled her and also told her that there would be shame and bad name for their family in the society. It is alleged that the mother of the prosecutrix suggested that the prosecutrix should get married in the family of the accused persons and the same was agreed by them. Thereafter, the parents of the applicant started calling the prosecutrix as her daughter in law.

6. It is alleged that no marriage ceremony took place between the prosecutrix and the applicant and there was only a Chunni Ceremony, after which she was taken by the accused family to their home.

7. It is alleged that two days after the ceremony, the prosecutrix along with the applicant were expelled out of the family home by co- accused Pooja and they were told that the family had disowned the applicant and he has no right in the family property.

8. It is alleged that the applicant and the prosecutrix then started living at a rented premises. During that time, the complainant gave birth to a male child.

9. The prosecutrix supported the case of the prosecution in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has clean antecedents. He submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

11. He submitted that that the present FIR was registered after a delay of 3.5 years and no reason for the same has been given. He Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER BAIL APPLN. 1524/2024 Page 3 of 10 submitted that the present FIR has been maliciously filed due to domestic disputes between the complainant and the accused persons.

12. He submitted that the mother of the applicant had given a complaint against the complainant on 27.09.2021. He submitted that a civil suit was also filed by the applicant’s father seeking permanent injunction in respect to their pro