The court ruled that the age of the victim and the serious nature of the allegations under the POCSO Act are critical factors in denying bail, regardless of claims of a consensual relationship.

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being A-Part C.R. No.11209024230272 of 2023 registered with the Jadar Police Station, Sabarkantha of the offence punishable under Sections 363,366, 376(N), 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4,5(L), 6, 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

3. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present application is that one Talaji Somaji, the father of the victim girl, lodged the present FIR, inter alia, stating that he is having three children viz. elder daughter Urvashi, aged about 15 years and four months, then younger to Urvashi, namely, Ketaben studying in the sixth standard, and younger to Ketaben is the son, namely, Chirag, studying in the fourth standard. It is alleged in the complaint that one Jaydipsinh Chhatrasinh Rathod of Taluka: Mansa, District: Gandhinagar, i.e, the applicant herein was working at the Pan Masala Parlor of his brother Nanabhai Natwarji and was residing at his maternal uncle’s house, namely, Gulabsinh Maneksinh Zala at Idar. It is stated in the complaint that almost one year ago from the date of the incident, the said Jayrajsinh teased the elder daughter of the complainant Urvashi and, therefore, he was relieved from his job by the brother of the complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that on the date of the incident, when the complainant and his wife Teenaben woke up in the morning, their daughter Urvashi was not found on her bed and, therefore, they started searching her in the nearby houses as well as at the respective houses of the brothers of the complainant, namely Natvarji and Rakeshji, however, they did not find the whereabouts of their daughter Urvashi. Then, they also inquired in the village but the same was also in vain. Thereafter, they went to the house of the uncle of the applicant Gulabsih Maneksinh at Idar and inquired about his nephew Jaydipsinh, whereupon, the said Gulabsinh told the complainant that his nephew Jaysinh has not returned back to home since last night and his mobile phone is also switched off, which created doubt in the mind of the complainant that the said Jaydipsinh has taken away their daughter Urvashi by luring her with some malice intention. Hence, the impugned FIR.

4. Learned advocate Mr. S.M. Agrawal appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant-accused is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present offence. He further submits that the applicant-accused and the daughter of the complainant developed intimacy with each other and one fine day, the daughter of the complainant, on her free will and volition, eloped with the applicant-accused and then they both went to different places like Udaipur, Jodhpur, Mumbai and lastly stayed at Surat and started working there together in one Paper Company, which is clearly evident from the statement of the so called victim girl recorded by the police under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. She has stated therein that one another couple, namely, Yuvraj and Ramila of village Anodiya also ran away from their respective houses along with them who were also working with them in the paper company at Surat. Thus, it is clear from her statement that she, on her free will and volition, eloped with the applicant-accused and stayed with him for quite some time at certain places. Learned advocate Mr. Agrawal also submits that if the daughter of the complainant was being abducted or forcibly taken away by the applicant-accused under any duress