Supreme Court grants bail to POCSO accused after five months in custody

Supreme Court directed the accused to extend complete cooperation in the trial, and to not misuse his liberty in any manner or to influence the witnesses in any way. In addition, the accused was directed to not make any attempts to re-associate with the victim girl in any manner either through a device or in-person.

Supreme Court: In an appeal challenging the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, wherein the Court refused to grant bail to the accused charged for offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 506, 363, 366, 376, 511 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7 read with Section 8 and Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the division bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. released the accused on bail.

In the present case, the father of the prosecutrix, lodged a written complaint, alleging that the accused, along with her female friend, gave an unknown substance to the prosecutrix, rendering her unconscious. That the accused and her friend then took her on a scooter to an unknown location and committed an attempt to rape upon her. Consequently, FIR was registered.

The accused was arrested on 08-05-2024 and the chargesheet was filed before the POCSO Court on 05-06-2024. The accused preferred an application seeking regular bail before Special Judge-2, which was dismissed vide order dated 25-06-2024. Thereafter, he approached the Rajasthan High Court by filing bail application. Vide impugned order dated 16-07-2024, the High Court rejected the bail application filed by the accused. Aggrieved, the accused filed the instant appeal.

The accused submitted that he has been in jail since May 2024. Further, he was only eighteen and a half years at the time of the alleged commission of the offence whereas the victim was about sixteen years, and there was a consensual relationship between the parties. The chargesheet was filed on 05-06-2024 and there are as many as twelve witnesses to be examined; that the trial will be prolonged and having regard to the fact that the parties were in a consensual relationship, the High Court was not right in sustaining the order of rejection of bail by the Trial Court.

The State submitted that there are other criminal antecedents as against the accused and the minimum sentence in the case of these offences is seven years, but he has been in jail only for a few months and there is every likelihood of him being convicted and therefore, there is no merit in this case.

The Court directed the accused to be produced before the Trial Court as early as possible. Further, the Trial Court was directed to release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose to ensure his presence in the proceedings.

CASE DETAILS

Citation:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2709

Appellants :
Deshraj

Respondents :
State of Rajasthan

Advocates who appeared in this case

For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Pranav Khoiwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s):
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG Mr. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv.

CORAM :