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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 506, 511 (Section 367 added lateron) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to rape – Regular bail – Compromise between parties – Prosecutrix is 36 years of age -- An affidavit was executed by the complainant/prosecutrix wherein she has stated that the parties have since entered into Panchayati Compromise and therefore, she did not want to pursue any further with the proceedings – Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 7-9)

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), Section 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Gang rape -- Anticipatory bail – Prosecutrix was 36 years of age – I.O. is not in a position to dispute that the prosecutrix has not supported the contents of FIR in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- Medical evidence has been sent to FSL and report is awaited -- Considering the facts of the case and the age (17 years) of the petitioner, he is granted anticipatory bail.

(Para 2, 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Dowry harassment case – Anticipatory bail – Non-recovery of some dowry articles – Whether it is ground for refusal of pre-arrest bail – Ld. Session Judge held merely on the assertion of the complainant that more valuable articles are yet to be recovered, anticipatory bail could not be refused, criminal proceedings u/s 406 and 498-A of IPC are not meant for recovery of jewellery and dowry articles and complainant, if so chooses, can move civil court for recovery of the said articles – High Court saw no reason to take a different view and withdraw the concession of pre-arrest bail to the accused – Petition by complainant dismissed.

(Para 2-6)

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, 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)