Back
Minor's '' Relevant For Bail Despite :
In a significant ruling, the has granted regular bail to a man accused under the , emphasizing that while the consent of a minor is legally immaterial, her “” to a physical relationship can be considered as a relevant circumstance while deciding an accused's bail plea.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani , presiding over the case of , made the observation while granting bail to the petitioner, who was also a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The case arose from an FIR registered under and .
Case Background: A Teenage Relationship
The prosecutrix, born on , was around 16 years old when the incidents occurred in May-June 2022. The petitioner, now about 20 years old, was also a minor then. The two met while working at the same pickle-manufacturing factory, developed a friendship, and allegedly engaged in physical relations on multiple occasions, including May 2, May 16, and , at the prosecutrix's home when no one else was present.
The prosecutrix's statement under clearly stated that the physical relations were consensual, though she added that the petitioner had promised to marry her. Notably, her claim of pregnancy was later found to be incorrect upon medical examination.
Court's Reasoning: Distinguishing from
The court acknowledged that the petitioner had already spent about one year and eleven months in judicial custody with satisfactory jail conduct and no other criminal cases. The nominal roll indicated no allegations of force, violence, or brutality.
Justice Bhambhani referred to the court's earlier decision in , which held that while raises the bar for bail, it does not create an absolute bar. The court then applied the “” outlined in that precedent.
“Though there is no gainsaying the fact, that technically in law, consent of the prosecutrix is immaterial since she was 'minor' at the relevant time, the court cannot completely ignore the fact that the prosecutrix herself says that the physical relations between the two happened with her approval,” the court observed.
Key Observations: and
The court emphasized that the prosecutrix was of the “,” though not the age of majority. Being about 16 years old and having worked in a factory with a certain level of maturity, her voluntary participation could not be ignored.
“This court is also of the view that being about 16 years of age and having worked in a factory, with a certain level of maturity, it cannot be ignored that the prosecutrix has, both in the FIR as well as in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. expressly said that she had physical relations with the petitioner voluntarily,” the court said.
The court further noted that the physical relations occurred within the confines of the prosecutrix's home, “into which she invited the petitioner of her own free will and volition.”
Court's Decision: Bail Granted with Conditions
Allowing the bail petition, the court directed the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties from family members. The conditions include:
- Providing an active mobile phone number to the investigating officer
- Surrendering any passport and not traveling abroad without court permission
- Not contacting, visiting, or threatening any prosecution witnesses
- Not tampering with evidence or prejudicing the trial
The court clarified that its observations are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending trial, where the deposition of the prosecutrix and her mother has already been recorded.
