In cases of sexual assault on minors, the contention of a consensual relationship has no bearing, and bail should not be granted in such offenses under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act.

Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2024 The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) by the sole accused in Crime No.117 of 2024 of the Karimannoor Police Station, Idukki, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 370A, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , Sections 4 (2) r/w 3(a), 6(1) r/w 5(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’), Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3(1) (w)(i), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The petitioner was arrested on 22.02.2024.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that : the accused had induced the defacto complainant/victim, a 14 year old girl, and committed rape on her and aggravated sexual assault. The accused has also committed offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, since the victim belongs to the said community. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.

3.Heard; Sri.Basil Chandy Vavachan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the accusations leveled against him. The petitioner is a 25 year old youth. He was in love with the victim. A reading of Annexure 1 First Information Statement would substantiate that the victim went along with the petitioner on her own volition. The relationship between the parties was consensual. In fact, the petitioner and the victim have been in love for quite some time. Even after the alleged incident, the victim was residing in the house of the petitioner. It is only because of some person complained to the Investigating Officer that the above crime has been registered. The petitioner proposes to marry the victim immediately on her attaining majority. The petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last four months, the investigation in the case is complete, the medical examinations have been conducted and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner had committed rape and aggravated sexual assault on the victim. Moreover, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the petitioner has also committed the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The victim is only aged 14 years. Hence, there is no question of the victim giving her consent for having sexual inter course. Furthermore, the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents since he is involved in two other crimes of the very same Police Station. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the victim and witnesses, and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the notice on the victim was served on 13.06.2024. 6.The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, he had raped and committed aggravated sexual assault on the victim, who was 14 years of age. The victim also belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.

7.The sheet anchor of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was in love with the victim and their relationship was consensual. The petitioner would get married to the victim immediately on her attaining the age of majority. The family members of the victim have no objection in the petitioner getting married to the victim. As the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid, the petitioner’s further detention is not necessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.

8. In a case of id