Nagpur: Stopping the applicant bail a man accused of raping a little girl, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that the consent of a person who is not an adult to have sexual relations is not acceptable in law.
“The approval obtained by threats and / or even approval modest by minors do not have value in the eyes of the law.
Therefore, the advice Petitioners can not suppress aspects of the agreement.
Petitioner is a resident of Uttar Pradesh which has no roots in Maharashtra.
In our view, this is not a case where this court should exercise its jurisdiction to release him on bail, “said a division bench comprising judges and Anuja Prabhudessi Vinay Deshpande.
Pressing for bail to 23-year colleague Mohammed Ismail Mohamed, his lawyer argued that there is a love affair between him and the survivors.
“The girl had eloped with the Applicant and stayed at his residence in Kaushambi in nearly 45 days, further detention in prison is not required since the investigation officer has completed its investigation and file a final report before the court,” the lawyer said.
Quoting the girl, the judge said clearly shows that at no time was some time he experienced all kinds of love or affection towards the Applicant, and he tried to persuade him even with his wishes.
“The statement that girl will also show that the defendant threatened to kill his brother, aged three and a half years, which is exactly the reason to keep him company.
Statement of the girl plus a medical opinion, prima facie, to support the cost of rape.
There is a statement of a prosecution witness as well, that the clearly involves the accused, “the bench noted.
Ismail had eloped with a minor on June 14 last year to ride and after staying at his home there, he returned to Buldhana.
Ismail was arrested by police Buldhana on August 1 after she accused him of kidnapping and sexually exploit them for 45 days.
Furthermore, the applicant was charged under Section 363, 376 (1) (i) (i), 506 IPC, Sections 4 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offens (POCSO), and Section 3 (1) (W) (i ) (ii) and 3 (2) (v) of the Act of Cruelty.
After the bail application rejected by Additional Sessions Judge Mehkar on October 22, 2021, the defendant challenged in HC.
Citing Survivor School Leaving Certificate, the HC bench said it showed that he was a small child and the child within the meaning of clause (d) Section 2 (1) of the Act POCSO.
“Petitioners counsel submitted that there is no main document contained in the charges sheet to indicate the age of the victim.
This aspect can be considered during the trial in which there will be an opportunity for the prosecution and the victim to prove the date of birth of the girl,” they said.