Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)n -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape case-- Regular bail – Petitioner is behind bars since 16.01.2020 -- Alleged occurrence took place in July, 2019 whereas, the present FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2020 -- Though the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, however, out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses including all the material witnesses already stand examined -- Thus, the chances of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner definitely does not survive any more -- Petitioner has no criminal antecedents -- Trial will take sufficient long time -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of the evidence -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354, 509 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – POCSO case -- Recall of minor witness and parents for cross-examination – Right of -- Victim is of tender age and she has been sought to be re-called along with her parents for the purpose of cross-examination -- It has to be borne in mind that a fair opportunity of defence has to be afforded to the petitioner/ accused particularly because the counsel was in some personal difficulty -- Recall of the witnesses appears to be essential for the just decision of the case – Victim and her parents can be compensated in terms of costs -- Re-call of witnesses allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to each witness.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 – POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Allegation that petitioner has tried to do bad act with victim by forcibly kissing her and with intention to commit rape, he has broken the string of her Salwar – Prosecutrix is stated to be 17 years and 02 months of age -- Prosecutrix when was taken to hospital, she made a statement that she does not want to be medico-legally examined as no rape was committed with her -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 01 year and 11 months; he is not involved in any other case and also considering the fact that statement of the prosecutrix already stands recorded, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- POCSO matter -- Bail to juvenile -- Rape with minor – Victim was just 01 year and 09 months old -- 11 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined -- Prima facie, there are very serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, for which the Court is not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner -- However, since the petitioner has been in custody since 09th August, 2019, the Juvenile Board/trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably, on or before 30th November, 2021.

(Para 2-4)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 115 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – POCSO matter -- Rape with minor – Bail to juvenile -- Petitioner was declined bail on the ground that release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice – Held, a juvenile can be denied the concession of bail, if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the J.J. Act is available – J.J. Act is a beneficial legislation and gravity or seriousness of the offence would not be a ground to decline concession of bail to the juvenile – No purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in custody -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 5-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Anticipatory bail by juvenile – Maintainability of -- Petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the juvenile is not maintainable.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 365, 366-A, 376, 467, 468, 420, 471 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape and kidnapping – Regular bail -- Detention for more than six months – As per Voter I. Card and statement given by her before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, her Date of Birth happens to be 07.08.2001 -- She further stated that she had married the petitioner at her own will on 13.10.2020 and wanted to live with him – Prosecutrix is now residing with her parents, it would be fair to assume that the petitioner even if now released on bail would not be in a position to exert any undue influence or administer threat upon her -- Trial is likely to take its own considerable time to complete due to ongoing covid-19 pandemic, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail is allowed.

(Para 1-3)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364A, 376, 216, 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11, 106 -- Murder -- Rape -- Kidnapping -- Out of three eye-witnesses, two witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution -- Both these witnesses are close relations of the victim and there is nothing on record to indicate that they were either put under any pressure or that there was any element of suspicion -- Both these witnesses were categorical that the persons who kidnapped the victim were not before the Court in the capacity as the accused – Third witness-informant, the father of the victim, reporting made by this witness, based on which the crime was registered neither shows that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence nor does it disclose that the identity of the accused who had kidnapped the victim was in any way known at the stage when the occurrence took place -- Thus, all three witnesses who were claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and on whose testimonies, reliance was placed by the prosecution, are of no help.

(Para 20, 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364A, 376, 216, 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11, 106 -- Murder -- Rape -- Kidnapping -- Circumstantial evidence – Though the post-mortem report discloses that the victim was sexually assaulted, the FSL Report on record does not establish any connection of the accused with the sexual assault on the deceased victim -- Dead body of the victim was found lying in an open field -- Record is again not clear as to when the present appellants were arrested and how and in what manner their disclosure statements led to the recovery of the dead body – There are of course circumstances like recovery of clothing apparel as well as tiffin box etc. belonging to the victim -- However, such recoveries by themselves, in the absence of any other material evidence on record pointing towards the guilt of the accused, cannot be termed sufficient to hold that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Not only those circumstances are not conclusive in nature but they also do not form a cogent and consistent chain so as to exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants -- Held, prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 24-27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 363, 366-A, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – POCSO case – Bail to juvenile -- No reasonable explanation or finding given as to how the petitioner, if released on bail, would come into association with any known criminals -- Petitioner who is a juvenile, is in judicial custody since 14.10.2019 -- Both the Courts below have not referred to any social investigation report prepared by the respondent-State, as to the background of the petitioner or with whom he associates with -- To reject the appeal on a presumption that he would come into association with any criminal is wholly unjustified – Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Revision petition allowed, petitioner directed to be released on bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Hostile witnesses -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution version while appearing in the witness box and have been declared hostile -- Petitioner has been in custody since 13.1.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude because of Covid-19 pandemic -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars – Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 216 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 376-D -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- POCSO matter -- Rape – Alteration of charge -- In FIR and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. made by the victim, she has not specifically alleged rape and has only stated that the accused tried to outrage her modesty – Victim is 17 year old, when was medically examined, it was disclosed to the Doctor concerned that the victim had been raped -- Report of FSL also discloses that human semen was detected from the under-garments and from the vaginal swabs – No infirmity, whereby the trial Court has proceeded to alter the charges so as to frame charges for offences u/s 376D IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 53-A, 173 -- POCSO matter -- Blood sample for DNA test -- Investigaiton report already filed – Permissibility of -- Petitioner is facing a charge of committing repeated rape on the prosecutrix, who was less than 16 years of age and also for committing penetrative sexual assault upon her – Trial Court allowed the application for DNA test – Revision challenging the order -- Held, mere fact that application has been filed after submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. is no ground to entertain revision petition as charges are yet to be framed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Compromise -- Since the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 344, 366, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 235, 360 – Kidnapping case -- Appellant/ accused no. 4 & 5 are not a main accused – Sentence reduce to 3 months/ already undergone -- Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing -- Main accusation was against accused no.1, who is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 344, 366, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years -- Even in the complaint, it was mentioned that accused no.1 was in love with the victim girl PW-2 -- It is also the case of the appellants that PW-1 was not a direct witness to the incident and PW-2 has been tutored by PW-1 -- Alleged incident is of the year 2014 and appellants (accused no. 4 & 5) have already served sentence of about three months and paid fine amount -- Pleaded that there is no one to take care of their minor son and old age parents -- Sentence modified for the period already undergone -- Appellants ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 376-D -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Compromise -- Parties are stated to have amicably resolved their issues and while also noticing that the petitioner in any case has been behind bars since the last about 10 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition, as such, accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A (Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 added later on) – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Compromise – Prosecutrix is now almost 18, compromise states that the petitioner and prosecutrix were in a relationship -- Petitioner is 24 year of age -- In view of the above, especially when the petitioner is in custody for over a year, he is not involved in any other criminal case, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 1, 2, 6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506 & 34 (offences u/s 363, 366-A, 120-B & 109 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Detention for 1 year, 2 months and 8 days -- Evidence of the material witnesses including Prosecutrix recorded – As per MLR there is “no evidence of any injury anywhere on the body, breast well developed. Axillary and Pubic Hair present. No Injury anywhere on external genitalia” -- Chemical Examiner's Report is also not helpful to the prosecution case -- In view of the long detention undergone by the petitioner as also the fact that the deposition of the material witnesses including the Prosecutrix have already been recorded, on account of which, there is no possibility of their being subjected to any kind of threat or pressure, at this stage, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail allowed.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB, 354A(I) – Rape case – Recall of minor witness/victim – Alleged that letter by victim stating about registration of wrong complaint -- Considering the fact that the victim/PW as duly supported the prosecution version and has proved the original complaint (Ex. P-1), which is in her own handwriting, and also in view of the fact that medical evidence duly supports the allegations of penetrative sexual assault on the victim, Court find no ground to allow the application to recall the victim/PW – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1,2,10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 376-D, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail -- Previously also FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable u/s 376-D, 365, 323, 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012, whereby a cancellation report submitted by the police has been accepted after hearing the complainant -- On similar allegations, the present FIR has been registered -- Affidavits given by the complainant and her daughter, wherein they have retracted from the allegations – Final report was filed on 06.02.2020, but the charges are yet to be framed -- Considering the custodial period of the petitioner, his further detention behind the bars may not be necessary -- Outbreak of pandemic COVID-19 may delay the conclusion of trial -- Petition allowed.

(Para 4-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 361, 366 – Kidnapping of minor girl – Consensual affair with boy -- Appellant admits to having established sexual intercourse and of having an intention to marry her -- Whether a consensual affair can be a defence against the charge of kidnapping a minor? -- Held, section 361 IPC, bestows the ability to make crucial decisions regarding a minor’s physical safety upon his/her guardians -- Therefore, a minor girl’s infatuation with her alleged kidnapper cannot by itself be allowed as a defence, for the same would amount to surreptitiously undermining the protective essence of the offence of kidnapping -- Similarly, Section 366 of IPC postulates that once the prosecution leads evidence to show that the kidnapping was with the intention/knowledge to compel marriage of the girl or to force/induce her to have illicit intercourse, the enhanced punishment of 10 years as provided thereunder would stand attracted.

S. Varadarajan’s case (1965) 1 SCR 243 is distinguishable as it was restricted to an instance of “taking” and not “enticement” -- Cited judgment, therefore, cannot be of any assistance without establishing: first, knowledge and capacity with the minor of her actions; second, voluntary abandonment on part of the minor; and third, lack of inducement by the accused -- No fault can thus be found with the conviction of the appellant under Section 366 of IPC.

(Para 11-17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 359, 361, 366 – Kidnapping of minor girl – Consensual relationship with boy -- Appellant admits to having established sexual intercourse and of having an intention to marry her – Lower courts awarded 5 year R.I. -- Whether the punishment awarded is just, and ought there be leniency given the unique circumstances? -- Quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be revisited for the following reasons:

first, it is apparent that no force had been used in the act of kidnapping. There was no preplanning, use of any weapon or any vulgar motive. Although the offence as defined under Section 359 and 361 of IPC has no ingredient necessitating any use of force or establishing any oblique intentions, nevertheless the mildness of the crime ought to be taken into account at the stage of sentencing.

Second, although not a determinative factor, the young age of the accused at the time of the incident cannot be overlooked. As mentioned earlier, the appellant was at the precipice of majority himself. He was no older than about eighteen or nineteen years at the time of the offence and admittedly it was a case of a love affair. His actions at such a young and impressionable age, therefore, ought to be treated with hope for reform, and not punitively.

Third, owing to a protracted trial and delays at different levels, more than twenty-two years have passed since the incident. Both the victim and the appellant are now in their forties; are productive members of society and have settled down in life with their respective spouses and families. It, therefore, might not further the ends of justice to relegate the appellant back to jail at this stage.

Fourth, the present crime was one of passion. No other charges, antecedents, or crimes either before 1998 or since then, have been brought to our notice. The appellant has been rehabilitated and is now leading a normal life. The possibility of recidivism is therefore extremely low.

Fifth, unlike in the cases of State of Haryana v. Raja Ram [(1973) 1 SCC 544.] and Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat [(1973) 2 SCC 413.], there is no grotesque misuse of power, wealth, status or age which needs to be guarded against. Both the prosecutrix and the appellant belonged to a similar social class and lived in geographical and cultural vicinity to each other. Far from there being an imbalance of power; if not for the age of the prosecutrix, the two could have been happily married and cohabiting today. Indeed, the present instance is an offence: mala prohibita, and not mala in se. Accordingly, a more equitable sentence ought to be awarded.

Given these multiple unique circumstances, Court opined that sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Courts below, is disproportionate to the facts of the this case -- Concerns of both the society and the victim can be respected, and the twin principles of deterrence and correction would be served by reducing the appellant’s sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone by him -- Quantum of sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

(Para 21-28)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 35 --  Date of birth -- Recitals of the admission and withdrawal register are admissible in evidence, as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(Para 18)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 154, 155 -- Hostile witness – Evidential value -- Reliance upon other evidence -- Simply on the score that witnesses did not support the prosecution version in the Court, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place -- Their testimonies, as such, cannot be discarded in toto – Testimony of the hostile witnesses can be relied upon by the prosecution, to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version and cannot be treated as washed off the records -- There is no legal bar to base conviction of the accused, upon such kind of testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

-- While facing cross-examination, the prosecutrix has identified her signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and she has also admitted about having undergone medical examination.

-- Though, she had stated about the statement Ex.P4 before the Magistrate, to be an outcome of pressure of the police but however, no reason, as such, has been assigned, as to why the police intend to falsely implicate the appellant by making the prosecutrix as tool.

-- No bitterness or animosity at the behest of the police, towards the accused-appellant, as such, is coming forth -- Neither the accused, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., has stated about the reason for false implication.

-- MLR, opinion has been given that-'possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out and depends on semen and DNA analysis of supplied cloth and swabs.'

-- As per conclusion in DNA report-The Autosomal STR analysis indicates that DNA profile of seminal stains on source of item no.3B (Cotton Swab) and item No.4 (Salwar) is matching with the DNA Profile of Irshad (Source of item No.6).

Result of genuine DNA test is scientifically adequate and reliance upon the same can be laid to establish the connectivity of the wrong doer -- Thus, in the light of such medical evidence brought on record, sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, as such, and the role of the appellant, is established -- When linkage of the appellant, as such, through scientific manner is coming forth, it was incumbent upon the appellant, to lead sufficient evidence to rebut the legal presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO Act, operating against him -- Convection u/s 4 POCSO Act and Section 376 (3) IPC, upheld.

(Para 22-30)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 42 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Section 376(3) – Retrospective effect of penal provisions -- Sentence awarded u/s 376(3) IPC, while considering the same to be greater in degree than Section 4 of the POCSO Act -- Amendment in the IPC, thereby, adding Section 376(3) IPC, received assent of Hon'ble President of India on 11.08.2018 and in the light of the same, it is submitted that no retrospective effect can be given to this provision, in view of the occurrence in question (allegedly) having taken place on 02.06.2018 – Held, submission so made is not tenable, as the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, was deemed to have come into force on 21.04.2018 and that being so, it was in force at the time of taking of place of occurrence in question on 02.06.2018 – Ld. trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence (20 years RI), so provided in the aforesaid Section 376(3) IPC and the same is just and reasonable.

(Para 30)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape case – Regular bail – Complainant filed an Affidavit to the effect that the subject FIR was registered on a misunderstanding – Medical examination report of the girl did not disclose the commission of rape upon her and there were no signs of any use of force -- Forensic DNA test report disclosed that no human semen was detected -- Final opinion of the expert was that there were no signs suggestive of penetration of the vagina or anus of the victim – Held, no case of sexual assault is made out, prima facie, against the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366 -- (Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act were added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Compromise between parties -- Petitioner has allegedly enticed away the victim on the pretext of marrying her -- FIR pertains to July, 2019 and at that time, the victim was below 18 years of age and now in view of the compromise, she has performed the marriage and is residing with the petitioner -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the girl in question shows that she had gone willingly with the petitioner and it has been stated by her in no uncertain terms that nothing wrong was done by the petitioner or anyone else -- Only FSL report is on record and not the medical report -- No doubt, the prosecutrix is minor but in view of her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as also taking into account the age of the petitioner too who is 22 years alongwith the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year, Court deemed it proper to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 1,6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363 and 366-A (Section 120-B IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping case – Run-away marriage -- Protection petition after marriage -- Regular bail – Matriculation certificate shows that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 26.03.2002 and in this manner, on the date when she solemnised marriage with the petitioner, she had attained the age of majority -- State submitted that as per the birth certificate issued by the Registrar (Births and Deaths), the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 26.11.2002 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Kidnapping case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties got their statements recorded and Ld. Magistrate submitted report to the effect that the compromise is genuine – None has put in appearance on behalf of complainant party but no prejudice would be caused to them as they have already made a joint statement with regard to compromise before Ld. Magistrate – FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 2-8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 9 -- Run-away marriage – Boy aged 18 years and girl aged 16-1/2 are not competent to perform marriage -- FIR against Granthi of Gurudwara Sahib registered, where marriage solemnised – It will open for the I.O. to investigate the case registered u/s 363 and 366-A IPC in accordance with law -- Petition for protection of life and liberty dismissed – Custody of girl handed over to Gandhi Vanita Ashram, who will take care of the studies of girl and will also abide by the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, till she attains the age of majority.

(Para 9-12)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Run-away marriage with minor -- Victim had left the house of her own and gone to Bihar with co-accused, where they had performed the marriage -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had allured the victim, who is a minor girl -- Petitioner, who is having a minor child, has been in custody since 14.08.2020 -- No witness has been examined so far -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping – Regular bail -- Victim 17 year old taken away on the pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- She has refused to get herself medically examined -- Challan has been presented -- Charges have also been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Looking to the facts and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(f), 376(3) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Rape with minor cousin sister – Prosecutrix was residing in house of petitioner being brought up by his mother -- Juvenile’s bail – Prosecutrix entire statement recorded – Petitioner was aged about 15 years when the FIR was lodged still continues to be a juvenile -- By now, he has already remained in Safe Custody for more than one year and one and a half months –  His further detention there would not appear to be in his overall interest due to the fact that there are likely to be more juveniles in conflict with law, housed in the same premises -- Prosecutrix has already been shifted from the parental house of the petitioner -- No reason to deny petitioner the opportunity of coming back to the custody of his parents -- Trial is likely to take its own substantial time, particularly on account of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic -- Revision petition allowed -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 4-8)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354-B, 452, 506, 34 IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Disrobe the woman/minor – POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – There is dispute between two families resulting in registration of two FIR's, taking the allegations in the FIR on its prima facie value, the serious allegations are only against accused S and R, interim bail granted -- Petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation and he is no more required for further investigation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 343, 506, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 – Gang rape with minor – Regular bail -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.12.2019 and the victim and her father/complainant have not supported the version of the prosecution, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 10)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 17 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 346, 365 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape with minor girl – Regular bail -- Argued that prosecutrix in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., did not name the petitioner and on the basis of a supplementary statement, the petitioner was named as a person, who had also ravished her along with one B – B declared as a juvenile and released on bail, while further contending that FSL would reflect that human semen has been detected on an exhibit pertaining to B and not the petitioner – Held, material witnesses have been examined and that conclusion of trial will take sufficient time, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars – Petition allowed and direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO matter – Compromise quashing of FIR – Keeping in view the fact of dispute having been amicably settled, petition allowed -- FIR along with ancillary proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-11)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 342, 506, 120-B – Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Contention that FIR was registered due to misunderstanding and settlement has been arrived at -- As per the medico legal report, the prosecutrix did not suffer any internal or external injury – AAG, has informed the Court that on the vaginal swabs also, no semen was detected -- Petitioner is in detention since 19.07.2020, on completion of the investigation, the challan has already been presented -- Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the aforesaid facts, direction given to release the petitioner on bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Crime against child – Rape case – Regular bail -- Girl in question is presently residing at the house of the petitioner coupled with her duly sworn affidavit and which could not be displaced by the State -- Thus, a debatable issue arises over the applicability of offences u/s 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act -- Accordingly, the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 12 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO case -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has refused to go through the medical examination -- In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she denied of any allegation of physical relation -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(D), 376, 511, 504, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 – Rape case -- Interim bail on medical ground by High Court – No satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment offered to respondent/accused was not adequate and he requires any further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the respondent on interim bail on medical grounds -- Even as on date, due medical care is being taken of the respondent/accused -- High Court, without considering the entire materials on record, has passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable – Appeal allowed, order granting interim bail set aside

(Para 15-19)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7,8 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012, Rule 7(2) – Conviction -- Compensation of Rs.1 lac -- Sole testimony of victim  – Reliance upon -- On evaluating the deposition of PW3/victim on the touchstone of the law laid down sole testimony of victim found absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality – No error in convicting the accused, relying upon the deposition of PW3/victim – Trial Court imposed the minimum sentence/three years  and compensation of Rs. 1 lac -- High Court modified the compensation and directed the State to pay the compensation to the victim and thereafter to recover the same from the accused under the provisions of the land revenue, if it finds that the accused has sufficient means – Held, case of the accused that he is very poor and has no property has been taken care by High Court – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 3, 4, 9, 10)

Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment ) Rules, 2015, Rule 12.18 (3) (e) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 12 – FIR against candidate – Acquittal as witnesses turned hostile – Right of appointment as Constable -- Petitioner was acquitted ‘while extending benefit of doubt to him’ which acquittal cannot be equated with a clean acquittal after a full-fledged trial has taken place and the witnesses have not compromised or turned hostile – Rule does not permit a candidate to be appointed, who has been acquitted on technical grounds, as in the instant case -- Employer would still have a right to consider the antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint any such candidate, who is ineligible as per the Rules – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3, 4 – Crime against child – Rape case – Regular bail -- Exception has been carved out for declining the bail to the juvenile who is in conflict with law i.e. he or she is likely to come in association with any known criminal or upon release on bail would expose such juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or that release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice -- For invoking such exception, there has to be some material before the competent authority -- Impugned orders completely bereft of any such reasoning -- No such material/evidence has been adverted to in the order – Revision petition allowed, impugned orders of both the Courts below set aside -- Petitioner is held entitled to grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

(Para 10-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 34, 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3 and 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape and kidnapping of girl-child – Regular bail -- Petitioner was not initially named as an accused in the FIR -- Implicated only upon the disclosure statement of the named accused – Case of the complainant was that her daughter had been enticed away by the named accused on the pretext of marriage -- Complainant did not name the petitioner as being involved -- Victim girl did not even mention the petitioner's name in her statement made before the police -- Named accused has already secured bail in this case -- Challan has already been filed -- No specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner -- Petition allowed, direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-4)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang rape – No physical act by petitioner – Regular bail -- As to whether or not the petitioner had any role to play in the commission of the offence by co-accused, would have to be determined by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial -- As matters stand, the medical evidence supports the innocence of the petitioner in so far as the actual physical commission of the offence is concerned -- Trial is bound to be delayed, owing to the present situation caused by the pandemic -- Petition allowed, direction given to release of the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 506, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 14(2) -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66E, 67E -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Unnatural offence – Recording of – Regular bail -- Petitioner alleged to have recorded the act when the co-accused was committing the heinous act – Actual act is alleged against co-accused – Petitioner is in custody since 14.6.2019 – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376A, 376B, 452, 506 -- Rape case -- 11 year old girl, pregnant – 22 weeks 2 days +/- 2 weeks pregnancy on 22.8.2020 -- Termination of -- Victim is of tender age, has suffered an ordeal of rape -- She conceived at an age where she does not possess maturity and physical health to be a mother -- To deny the termination on the technicalities would result in forcing her to live with the trauma for rest of her life -- She herself is of age to play and grow, to expect her to be a prospective mother and to take care of a child would neither be proper nor practical -- Conclusion of the Medical Board is clear that termination should be carried out with permission of the Court – Writ petition allowed, victim is permitted to undergo the medical termination of her pregnancy.

(Para 2, 3, 11-19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 8, 10, 12 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(W) (I) (II) & 3 (W) (2) (V) – Aggravated sexual assault -- Challan presented and charges stand framed – In view of the restricted working of the Courts due to pandemic COVID-19 situation, the trial is likely to take some time and petitioner in custody since 05.09.2019 and that out of 16 total witnesses 04 witnesses including the material witnesses have been examined and substantial length of custody i.e. incarceration for a period of one year, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366, 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC has stated that she wants to take the case back and wants to marry the petitioner -- Furthermore, she has refused to get herself medically examined -- Considering the fact that the petitioner, who is 19 years of age, is in custody since 15.02.2020 and his culpability is yet to be established during trial, which is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 6,7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 16 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Kidnapping -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2019, investigation is complete and challan has already been presented -- Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the courts are not functioning at their full strength -- No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 363, 366-A, 376, 506, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3,4 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3,4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Gang rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix supported the prosecution version, however, she turned hostile in respect of other accused -- Out of 20 prosecution witnesses, 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Petitioner is in custody since July, 2018 -- Due to the situation arising out of COVID-19 pandemic, the administration has imposed restrictions to curb its spread, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-10)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case (POCSO) – Regular bail – Love affair matter -- Compromise for marriage of petitioner and prosecutrix – Adjudication of question of guilt or innocence of the petitioner on the basis of evidence to be produced during trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 and that further detention of the petitioner in custody will not serve any useful purpose but without commenting on the merits of the case, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 10-14)