Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376-C and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- FIR of 2003 – Compromise between parties -- Incident is 17 years old, the complainant is not willing to pursue the matter, the petitioner is in custody for over 06 months -- 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 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section Sections 365, 452, 376, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- MLR shows that the age of the prosecutrix is of 19 years -- No external marks of injury have been found on her body -- Furthermore, a perusal of the FSL report shows that human semen was detected only on exhibit-1 (underwear) not detected on rest of the exhibits mentioned in the FSL report -- Challan presented, charges are yet to be framed -- Petitioner is under incarceration since 5.1.2020 -- Due to outbreak of pandemic of COVID-19, trial would take a long time to conclude -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-8)

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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Jump of bail – Proclaimed offender -- Petitioners were allowed anticipatory bail by High Court but they failed to put in appearance during trial and warrants of arrest were un-executed -- Though the prosecutrix has already turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution, however, concession of anticipatory bail ought not to be allowed to a person who has been declared as proclaimed offender -- Court deemed appropriate to direct the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within a period of one week and move appropriate application for bail -- In case they comply with the aforesaid directions their application for bail may be considered on the date so filed. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171, relied.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Petition allowed and FIR and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, ordered to be quashed.

(Para 10,11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Inherent powers of High Court – Petitioner married prosecutrix/complainant-respondent and now they are leading happy married life -- State has objected to the aforesaid course, but in the interest of justice and also to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings, Court viewed that inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised in order to achieve ends of justice -- FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Dowry death case – Car given to husband at the time of marriage – Superdari given to husband being registered owner by Special Court holding that since the plea of the petitioner/ complainant was that the car was given in dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter it meant that the same was gifted to the accused-husband -- By getting the car registered in his name the accused-husband accepted the said gift and thus the car cannot be said to be the istridhan of deceased – Held, registration certificate of a vehicle in favour of a person is an important determinative factor of ownership of the vehicle, keeping in view the limited scope of inquiry in a proceeding u/s 451 CrPC -- Petitioner can always stake his ownership on the car after getting the same determined by a competent court of law -- It is yet to be determined whether the car was part of the istridhan -- Ownership rights of the petitioner cannot be determined in proceedings u/s 451 CrPC – Order of Special Court upheld.

(Para 5-13)

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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Recovery of dowry article – Requirement of -- Bail opposed by complainant on the ground that recovery of the dowry articles is yet to be effected -- Submission is totally misplaced and misconceived, case pertains to the offence u/s 498-A IPC and is not u/s 406 IPC where the entrustment of articles is mandatorily required to be made to the person, by whom, it is misappropriated – Petitioner has joined the Investigation, no more required for further Investigation -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 3,4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Rape with mentally retarded girl -- Acquittal by Trial Court – High Court reversed the judgment and convicted the appellant for 7 years R.I. -- Victim had mild mental retardation and she was not in a position to understand the good and bad aspect of sexual assault – Appellant-accused had taken disadvantage of the mental illness of the victim -- Accused is found to be the biological father of the baby child delivered by the victim -- Despite the above, in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement the case of the accused was of a total denial -- It was never the case of the accused that it was a case of consent -- High Court has rightly observed that case would fall u/s 375 and convicted u/s 376 IPC -- Some contradictions with respect to language known by the victim cannot be said to be the major contradictions to disbelieve the entire medical evidence on the mental status of the victim – High Court is justified in reversing the order of acquittal and convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 376 & 506 IPC -- Imposing the minimum sentence of seven years RI, upheld.

(Para 11-13)

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 354-D, 506 – Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67(A) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Stalking – Regular bail – Petitioner sent obscene messages to complainant – FIR registered after six months of occurrence -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in judicial custody for the last about five months and also in view of the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Dowry death case -- Summoning of additional accused -- Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved after commencement of the trial -- Four witnesses already stood examined, thus the application was filed at the proper stage -- Evidence has been tested by way of cross-examination -- Persons were named in the FIR -- Only relevant question to be examined was regarding the 'degree of satisfaction' -- Death was caused due to asphyxia which was caused due to strangulation and throttling -- Thus, employment of external force in the death cannot be ruled out -- Harassment of deceased started on account of dowry immediately after the marriage -- PW-2 has attributed a specific role to father-in-law i.e. that of handing over gold jewellery of the deceased to him before she was rehabilitated on one occasion -- Thus, there exists more than prima facie case against father-in-law and the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Charges have been framed u/s 498-A IPC as well and there was no requirement of proving anything beyond harassment for dowry for summoning the additional accused.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone 1 year, 4 months and 12 days of custody and there is no other case pending against her – Medical evidence on record is in favour of the prosecution -- Death appears to have been caused by throttling which implies use of external force -- Moreover, prima facie, harassment on account of dowry has been established -- Death has taken place within one year and five months of marriage – Not a case of false implication -- It is not a case of inordinate delay -- Petition has no merit and dismissed at this stage.

(Para 18-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 376(2n), 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Relation on pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix already married – Regular bail -- Petitioner was already married -- Prosecutrix was married and staying with GC (the elder brother of her deceased husband) -- Unless the prosecutrix proves that she has taken divorce from GC, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage – Petitioner in custody since 31.08.2020 and the parties being mature enough to understand the implications of such like relationship and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 7-9)

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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354, 376, 406, 498-A, 506, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation that when the complainant was present in her room, the petitioner forcibly entered into her room and caught hold of her from the backside and started imposing himself with a bad intention and also started pressing her breasts – Superintendent of Police, was directed to file a specific affidavit as to how the present FIR has been registered u/s 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC keeping in view the allegations in the FIR – As per the statement of the victim and medical report, no case u/s 376 IPC is made out and the same stands deleted and Section 354 IPC has been added subsequently -- Petition allowed, interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-9)

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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B read with Section 34 -- Dowry death – Regular bail to husband -- Petitioner is employed in Army and was posted at faraway place at the time when the occurrence took place -- Family members of the petitioner found to be innocent and were exonerated by police -- Prima facie debatable questions as to whether any dowry demand was made by the petitioner and whether the deceased was subjected to any cruelty by the petitioner shortly before her death are involved -- Adjudication of these questions on the basis of evidence to be produced during the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of Covid-19 – Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 506 – Rape with married woman – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody since 18.10.2019 and due to the outbreak of the pandemic Covid-19 the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future – Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner -- Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Report of SIT that the police had collected call detail records of the accused and had found that the petitioner was present near Mansa Devi Mandir at the time of the alleged occurrence of 10.4.2018 where he had also got petrol filled up while using his credit card -- It was further found that even as on 24.6.2018 i.e. the second incident of alleged rape, the petitioner was present at different shops as per the call detail records, tower location and as per the purchases made by him at different shops -- SIT also could not find any substance in the allegations of the alleged abortion of the victim – Petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 3 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted, the petitioner is ordered to be released 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), Section 376(2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner and the complainant resided together for a period of 8 months with the knowledge of their parents – Further submission that both had decided to marry, yet on account of some temperamental differences, the marriage could not be solemnized, consensual relationship and the same cannot be said to attract the offence u/s 376(2)(n) of IPC and backtracking from the promise of marriage would at the most be an act of promiscuity. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar’s case (2019) 9 SCC 608 relied – Interim protection given directing the petitioner to join the investigation -- Petitioner joined the investigation and is now not required for any further investigation -- Petition allowed and the order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 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 --  Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Dowry death case – Regular bail of parents-in-law -- Petitioners in custody since 25.03.2020, investigation is complete as the challan has already been presented – Husband of the deceased is still in custody and the petitioners herein are willing to give an undertaking that they will look after the minor girls, who are currently residing with their daughters -- In order to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of the minor girls, it was directed that the petitioners will file an undertaking before the trial court that they will take care of their wellbeing, education and day-to-day needs etc. and they will furnish FDRs in the name of the minor girls of Rs. 5 lacs each, which will not be encashed till the minor girls attain the majority -- Petition allowed, petitioners directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 – Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner/ husband in custody for about two years -- As against total 21 witnesses only 01 witness has been examined so far -- Moreover, the prosecution has moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., so as to summon sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased -- In this manner, trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future as the application filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C., is pending consideration before the trial court – Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 10)

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)

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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – No false promise of marriage – Physical relationship on pretext of marriage -- Allegation of rape -- Acquittal of accused -- Appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship -- Prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles because of different religious beliefs -- An engagement ceremony was also held but unfortunately differences arose whether the marriage was to solemnised in the Church or in a Temple and ultimately failed -- Prosecutrix in her letters acknowledged that the appellant’s family was always very nice to her -- Conviction of the appellant unsustainable and set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 18-21)

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), Sections 376-D, 420, 367, 370 – Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (Punjab Act No. 2 of 2013), Section 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Complainant has not supported the case of prosecution -- Trial is likely to take some time to conclude as owing to novel corona virus pandemic, Courts are not working at their full strength and ordinary hearing matters are not being taken up -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 17 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 368, 372, 373 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Neither the prosecutrix nor her father supported the case and declared hostile -- In her statement u/s 164 CrPC, which was recorded on the same date of registration of FIR, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that the petitioner has not committed rape upon her --  Petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2019 and due to Covid-19, trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(n) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2019 and statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as owing to novel corona virus pandemic, Courts are not working at their full strength and ordinary hearing matters are not being taken up -- No useful purpose would be served by 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 498-A, 304-B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dowry death – Regular bail -- Wife committed suicide after more than 6 years and 7 months of the marriage – Complainant has partly been examined and mother-in-law of the deceased has been summoned in the case u/s 319 CrPC -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2018 and due to Covid-19, trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2) N, 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- FIR to the effect that about 20-25 days ago, petitioner entered prosecutrix’s house on finding her alone and committed rape upon her and started blackmailing her and whenever her husband went outside from the house, the petitioner used to rape her -- They also moved application against the petitioner before the police and a compromise was got effected but the petitioner did not mend his ways -- Petitioner was harassing her since last five months – Prosecutrix has not disputed the correctness of the affidavit submitted by the her -- In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation, affidavit of the prosecutrix and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of Covid-19, concession of regular bail extended to the petitioner.

(Para 2-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 341, 354C, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2020 -- Allegations of rape and criminal intimidation are against co-accused -- In the FIR, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and his involvement in the offence has surfaced on the basis of disclosure statement of prime accused -- No obscene material has been found in the mobile recovered from the petitioner -- His another co-accused has already been granted bail and on the ground of parity alone, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail -- That apart, investigation is over and commencement of trial is still awaited -- In the current pandemic scenario, the trial of the case is not likely either to start or get over soon – Taking wholesome view of the matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 4,5)

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)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354, 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO matter – Compromise between the parties – Regular bail -- Allegations that while victim’s parents were away, the accused/petitioner gained forcibly entry into her room and scuffled with her -- It is only when the victim called out to her sister that the accused ran away  -- Petitioner was arrested on 29.05.2020 – Investigation in the case is complete and the challan already stands presented -- It is not a case of sexual assault – Compromise has since been effected with the intervention of the village elders – Petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(Para 7-13)