Hon’ble Supreme Court Says: "Love Affair" No Ground For Bail When Minor Involved
Hon’ble Supreme Court Says: "Love Affair" No Ground For Bail When Minor Involved
The Apex Court said that grounds like "there was a love affair" between the girl & the accused & there was alleged "refusal to marry" will have no bearing on the grant of bail in the POCSO Case.
A bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud & Justice Surya Kant set aside the order of a single judge of Jharkhand High Court granting bail to an accused in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 & IPC.
"The High Court was manifestly in error in allowing the application for bail. The reason that from the statement under Section 164 & the averments in the FIR, it appears that 'there was a love affair' between the appellant & the second respondent & that the case was instituted on the refusal of the second respondent to marry the appellant, is specious.
The bench said, "Once, prima facie, it appears from the material before the Court that the appellant was barely thirteen years of age on the date when the alleged offence took place, both the grounds, namely that 'there was a love affair' between the appellant (girl) & the second respondent (accused) as well as the alleged refusal to marry, are circumstances which will have no bearing on the grant of bail".
"The order of the High Court granting bail has to be interfered with since the circumstances which prevailed with the High Court are extraneous in view of the age of the prosecutrix, having regard to the provisions of Section 376 of IPC & Section 6 of POCSO. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated August 2, 2021", it said. The bench directed that the accused should surrender forthwith to custody.
Senior advocate Anand Grover & advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing on behalf of the girl, submitted that the date of birth of the victim is 1st January, 2005, & at the time of the alleged offence, she was just about thirteen years of age.
On the contention of advocate Rajesh Ranjan, appearing for the accused, that he is a student studying in an engineering college & he will not get bail throughout the trial, the bench requested that in the facts & circumstances, the Special Judge, POCSO, who is in charge of the trial shall complete the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Mr Grover submitted, "Having regard to the provisions of Section 376 IPC & POCSO, the reasons which weighed with the High Court are, ex facie, specious & the application for bail ought not to have been allowed".
The Supreme Court noted that on 27th January, 2021, an FIR was registered in Kanke police station of Ranchi district for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal & provisions of the POCSO Act.
In the FIR, it was alleged by the petitioner girl that, at the material time, when she was a minor, the second respondent (accused) had taken her to a residential hotel & had entered into a sexual relationship on the assurance of marrying her. She had alleged that the accused was refusing to marry her & that he had sent certain obscene videos to her father.
It noted that the application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused was rejected by the Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi on Feb 18, 2021, after which he surrendered on April 3, 2021, & sought bail.
