RAJ KUMAR
Ranchi, Feb.23: The Supreme Court has set aside the order of Jharkhand High Court by which a person accused of raping a 13-yr-old girl was granted bail on August 3 last year observing that there were love affairs between the accused and victim and the allegation was levelled after the accused refused to marry the victim.
The apex court on February 21 setting aside the order that grants bail to the rape accused directed the accused to surrender before the court. Apart from this, the court also asked the POCSO court in Jharkhand capital to complete trial in the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
The matter reached before the apex court after the matter came into the knowledge of senior counsel Anand Grover through the victim.
An FIR in the matter was registered on January 27 last year at Kanke police station. It was alleged that when the girl was a minor she was taken to a residential hotel, where she entered into a sexual relationship at the age of 13 on the assurance of marrying her. She alleged two years after establishing a sexual relationship the accused refused to marry her and circulated her obscene videos to her father.
Following the FIR, the accused filed an anticipatory bail petition before the POCSO court. It was rejected on February 18, 2021. Following the rejection of bail, the accused surrendered on April 3, 2021 and sought bail. The chargesheet against him was submitted on May 24, 2021. He applied for bail at the high court, which allowed his application on August 3, 2021.
“It appears from the statement under section 164 Cr.PC, as well as averments made in the FIR that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the informant and the case appears to have been instituted only on the point of refusal of the petitioner to solemnise marriage with the informant,” the high court allowing the bail application of accused observed.
The victim’s lawyer, Grover challenged the order saying when the girl was raped she was only 13 years and thus the high court committed a mistake by allowing bail.
Though Rajesh Ranjan, the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused, submitted before the apex court that the high court did nothing wrong by allowing bail application as there has been no recovery of obscene videos nor there was any medical evidence to indicate that accused had any sexual contacts with the girl, the high court set aside the order.
“The high court was manifestly in error in allowing the application for bail. The reason that from the statement under section 164 and avertments in the FIR, it appears that ‘there was a love affairs’ between the appellant and the second respondent (read accused) and that the case was instituted on the refusal of the second respondent (read accused), is specious. Once, prima facie, it appears from the material before the court that the appellant was barely thirteen years of age on the date when the alleged offence took place, both the grounds namely that ‘there was a love affairs’ between the appellant and the second respondent as well as alleged refusal to marry, are circumstances which will have no bearing in the grant of bail. Having regard to the age of the prosecutrix and nature of gravity of the crime, no case for the grant of bail was established,” the division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Dr D.Y.Chandrachud and Suryakant observed.
