20 hours Ago By Swati Deshpande
MUMBAI: Bombay high court has granted bail to a 24-year-old accused in a 2019 Pocso case, noting that the girl, then aged 14, had voluntarily stayed with him for three nights and four days and confessed that she "was in love" with him and had a "consensual encounter". Justice Milind Jadhav said though the girl was "no doubt a minor", the facts "indicate she had sufficient knowledge and capacity to know the full import of her actions and what she was doing". Additionally, the man had been in jail as an undertrial for over five years, with the trial yet to start, HC noted in its bail order on Monday.
In 2019, the accused, then 19, was arrested and an FIR filed for kidnap and rape under IPC and Pocso Act . After hearing advocate Prema Pandey, for the accused, and legal aid lawyer Manisha Devkar, for the girl's father, Justice Jadhav said the statements of the father and his daughter were at "clear variance". Devkar, opposing the bail application, stressed that since the girl was then only 14 years old, her consent would not matter.
But HC said the girl's own statement during her medical examination threw light on her "nexus'' with the accused. She said they knew each other for two years. HC further said that she "categorically narrates" that the two "in fact, had a consensual relationship" and she was "aware of her actions".
The facts also show that her father was aware of her "love relationship" with the accused. HC said while Pocso Act provisions are stringent, they "would not deter the court to grant or refuse bail in order to secure the ends of justice". The girl left her parents' home and spent time with the accused voluntarily, it added.
Observing how multiple top court rulings favour the release of "young offenders" on bail pending trial to spare them the "regressive influences of jail environment", HC granted the accused bail on a PR bond of 15,000. HC also factored in the fact that the act alleged was not "violent" and the accused lacked criminal antecedents. The bail conditions include that he cannot leave Maharashtra without trial court nod, must inform the investigating officer of his address and mobile number, cannot influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and must cooperate with the trial, which has to be conducted on its own merit.
.
