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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Conviction for dowry death – Suspension of sentence -- Appellant is confined in jail from 15.12.2016 onwards and father of the appellant was diagnosed with pancolitis – Appeal pending before the High Court – Without going into the merits of the matter, considering the submissions and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15.12.2016, sentence suspended.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1), 389(3) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – In view of mandate of Section 389(3) of the CrPC, the principles are different in the case of sentence not exceeding three years and/or in the case of bailable offences -- Discretion u/s 389(1) is to be exercised judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to consider whether any cogent ground has been disclosed, giving rise to substantial doubts about the validity of the conviction and whether there is likelihood of unreasonable delay in disposal of the appeal.

(Para 26, 27)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Dowry death -- Object was to curb dowry death -- Section 304B does not categorize death, it covers every kind of death that occurs otherwise than in normal circumstances -- Where the other ingredients of Section 304B of the Code are satisfied, the deeming fiction of Section 304B would be attracted and the husband or the relatives shall be deemed to have caused the death of the bride -- In dealing with cases under Section 304B, this legislative intent has to be kept in mind -- Once there is material to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment before death, there is a presumption of dowry death and the onus is on the accused in-laws to show otherwise.

(Para 28-30)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389, 439 –Bail being the rule and jail an exception  -- Regular bail – Suspension of sentence – Difference between -- There is a difference between grant of bail u/s 439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence u/s 389 of the CrPC and grant of bail, post-conviction.

-- In the earlier case there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception.

-- In case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial.

(Para 36)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors -- There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 36)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Death took place within 7 or 8 months and there is oral evidence of the parents of cruelty and torture immediately preceding the death -- Also evidence of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent-Accused by the victim’s brother -- Respondent No.2-accused has not been able to demonstrate any apparent and/or obvious illegality or error in the judgment of the Sessions Court, to call for suspension of execution of the sentence. Held,

-- In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous.

-- Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail.

Appellant spent money beyond his financial capacity, at the wedding of the victim and had even gifted an I-10 car -- Failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim is inconsequential -- Parents and other family members of the victim obviously would not want to precipitate a complete breakdown of the marriage by lodging an FIR against the Respondent No.2 and his parents, while the victim was alive. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender for being taken into custody -- The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Para 38-42)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Run-away marriage – FIR under POCSO/IPC – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Now victim has been residing at her matrimonial home -- Petitioner has been in custody since 06.6.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-7)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 5-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Parole – Hardcore criminal – Penetrative sexual assault -- Petitioner convicted u/s 4 of the POCSO Act, which is more heinous crime than Section 376 IPC -- So, he falls under the definition of hard core prisoner and as per as per the provision of Section 5-A of the Amendment Act, 2015, hardcore prisoners are not entitled to release on parole under this Act, hence the petitioner is not entitled to be released on parole.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 313, 323, 34, 376 (2) (n), 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape on pretext to marriage – Regular bail – Prosecutrix is still married, no legal divorce and only statement that she got divorce before panchayat – Material witness i.e. prosecutrix has already been examined and there is no likelihood of petitioner influencing the trial, as there are no such allegations – Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2019, regular bail granted.

(Para 6-13)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4, 5, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape case -- Penetrative sexual assault -- Non-production of DNA report – Effect of -- Prosecutrix narrated the incident that the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on her -- She was grilled in cross-examination but she stuck to her ground -- Victim narrated the entire incident to her aunt first of all as her parents were not at home -- Prosecution examined victim’s paternal aunt and doctor who had examined the victim and prepared her MLR -- Report of the FSL has been produced, wherein it was opined that human semen was detected on the vaginal swabs, salwar and underwear of the victim -- In view of the aforesaid evidence, mere non-production of the DNA report would not be sufficient to discard the evidence of the prosecution – Appeal against conviction dismissed.

(Para 10-19, 23)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4, 5, 6 – Rape case -- Penetrative sexual assault – sentenced to less than minimum sentence – Non-filing of appeal by State – Effect of -- Punishment awarded by the Ld. trial Court is below the minimum sentence provided under the POCSO Act -- Since there is no appeal filed by the State, High Court did not find it appropriate to re-open the question of sentence.

(Para 20-22)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Compromise between the parties – Regular bail -- Investigation is already over and challan has also been filed -- Prosecutrix seems to have made complaint under the pressure of her parents, which led to registration of FIR in question -- Petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2020 -- Trial is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon on account of current pandemic conditions due to COVID-19 -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2) (n), 120-B – Rape case – Minor girl aged 15 years – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Procuration of Minor girl – Doubt created by defence – Consideration of -- Sweeping generalisations and superficial analysis – Permissibility of -- Reasoning is generic and is premised upon generalisations which may not be necessarily true always -- It is indisputable that parents would not ordinarily endanger the reputation of their minor daughter merely to falsely implicate their opponents, but such clichés ought not to be the sole basis of dismissing reasonable doubts created and/or defences set out by the accused.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Procuration of Minor girl -- Father eye-witness – Delay in 5 days in FIR – Effect of -- Five-day delay in registration of the FIR gains importance -- Difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen before moving the law into motion -- Sweeping assumptions concerning delays in registration of FIRs for sexual offences, send a problematic signal to society and create opportunities for abuse by miscreants -- Instead, the facts of each individual case and the behaviour of the parties involved ought to be analysed by courts before reaching a conclusion on the reason and effect of delay in registration of FIR.

(Para 11)

C. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Re-appreciation of evidence by Supreme Court -- Ordinarily, the Supreme Court ought not to reappreciate evidence -- However, where the courts below have dealt with the material-on-record in a cavalier or mechanical manner which is likely to cause gross injustice, then the Court in such exceptional circumstances may justifiably reappraise the evidence to advance the cause of justice -- Such re-assessment ought not to take place routinely and ought not to become substitution of an otherwise plausible view taken by the Courts below.

(Para 16)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Procuration of Minor girl -- Contradictions highlighted by defence -- Reversal of Burdon of proof – Permissibility of -- Trial Court has summarily disregarded the contradictions highlighted by the defense side, on the premise that such contradictions had no material bearing and that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix -- High Court too has opined that PW-1 and PW-2 have completely corroborated each other and their testimonies were impeccable -- These reasons are not only contrary to the record but they also lead to an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof imposed in criminal trials.

(Para 17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Plausible version by accused – Analysis of – Requirements of law -- Any alternate version of events or interpretation proffered by the accused must be carefully analysed and considered by the trial Court in compliance with the mandate of Section 313(4) -- Such opportunity is a valuable right of the accused to seek justice and defend oneself -- Failure of the trial Court to fairly apply its mind and consider the defence, could endanger the conviction itself -- Unlike the prosecution which needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove their alternate version by mere preponderance of probabilities – Held, once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea.

(Para 21)

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Criminal Intimidation -- Proving the intention to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act, and not mere utterances of words, is a pre-requisite of successful conviction under Section 506 of IPC -- Trial Court has undertaken no such separate analysis or recorded any finding on this count, thus calling into question the conviction for criminal intimidation – Conviction set aside.

(Para 25, 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 506, 120-B, 34 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has categorically deposed as to having been raped by the petitioner -- However, State has not been able to dispute the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, where she has admitted that she had gone with the petitioner to various places -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2018 and that out of 14, only 8 witnesses have been examined so far -- Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 494 – Rape case – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2019 -- In the interest of both the sides, the matter has been compromised between the parties -- Complainant has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Kidnaping – Compromise quashing – Petitioner and girls were minor at relevant time -- No evidence of actual commission of an offence under the POCSO Act, warranting to take a stricter view – Fit case for exercise of inherent powers so as to give a quietus to the issue – FIR and all proceedings pertaining thereto are quashed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 406, 120-B, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 451, 109, 323 & 34 – Outrage modesty of woman – Anticipatory bail -- In attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, petitioner had pulled the chunni of the complainant and also caused bruises with his hands on the face and breast of the complainant -- However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had not used any weapon -- Therefore, nothing is required to be recovered from him, as such – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(Para 1,5,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 120-B – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner has neither alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix nor has he done anything, which would be termed as an overt act and further the petitioner in custody, has now completed more than 14 months -- With the prevailing circumstances, trial is not likely to proceed soon as the Courts are not recording evidence at present -- Petitioner is directed to be release on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 34 – Kidnapping/ Abduction of girl -- Regular bail -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and the fact that the prosecutrix has given statement that she has gone on its own with the accused, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2), 506, 201 – Allegation of rape – No medical examination – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and the trial is likely to take sufficient long time due to Covid-19 – FIR has been lodged after one year of the occurrence and even the medical examination of the complainant was not got conducted at the relevant point of time or subsequent thereto, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose -- Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376(3) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution case, the petitioner is in custody for almost a year -- Covid 19 pandemic and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376(2) – Kidnapping and rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has failed to support the prosecution version nor her mother i.e. complainant has supported the prosecution story – Challan has been filed, charges have been framed and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 05 have been examined -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, especially during the prevailing conditions of corona virus pandemic -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(Para 8)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 1 -- POCSO Act was enforced on 14.11.2012, therefore, the incident which occurred on the eve of Lohri festival in 2011 cannot be made basis to try and convict the appellant under POCSO Act.

(Para 28)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 164 – Contents of FIR – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. – Deposition before court – Improvements  in -- Slight change in the facts -- One cannot be expected to have eidetic/photographic memory -- Natural variation do happen and such depositions are considered and relied upon by the courts after its careful analysis.

(Para 34)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – FIR – Contents of -- FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of the entire case of the prosecution -- An FIR is a mere first information sent to the prosecuting agency for setting criminal law in motion -- It is wrong to expect that in the FIR, complete detail of all the incidents must be disclosed -- An FIR is not expected to contain the proposed evidence to be produced by the prosecution.

(Para 35)

D. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 42 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 354-A -- Sentence cannot be awarded both under POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code simultaneously with respect to the offences enlisted in the Section 42 of POCSO Act -- Section 354-A overlaps to certain extent with offence u/s 7 of POCSO Act – Trial court committed an error in convicting the appellant u/s 354-A IPC as well as Sections 8 of POCSO Act -- Sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 354-A is set aside.

(Para 51, 52)