Supreme Court: In a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) against the decision of Rajasthan High Court wherein, the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused/ petitioner for offences under Sections 354(A) 354(B), 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), as well as under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the accused with a direction to cooperate with the investigation.
Background
The accused is the informant’s/ prosecutrix neighbour. The prosecutrix lodged a written complaint alleging that she had visited the house of the accused to charge her phone, during which he allegedly molested and misbehaved with her. Consequently, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 354(A) 354(B), 504 of the IPC, as well as under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
The accused on apprehension of arrest approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected vide the impugned decision. The case of the accused was that the High Court failed to appreciate the long-standing rivalry between the families. It was submitted that nearly two years had passed since the FIR was lodged, yet no investigation or progress was made in the case. It was also submitted that there was no risk of him absconding and that he is just 28 years old and detention could expose him to interactions with hardened criminals, which would not be in his best interest.
The Court perused the materials on record including the latest case diary produced by the State, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. The Court noted that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and that the chargesheet was yet to be filed.
The Court clarified that if the Police were to arrest the accused, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, the accused shall be allowed to go on bail. Further, considering that the accused and prosecutrix are neighbours, the Court directed the accused to maintain physical as well as virtual distance from the prosecutrix and other witnesses in the case.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
