Andhra Pradesh High Court: The present criminal petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed by the petitioner-accused seeking grant of regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., opined that prima facie, this was a case of elopement of two people, who were in love, where unfortunately the victim was a minor. The Court opined that adolescent love could not be controlled by the Courts and the Judges had to be careful in granting or denying bails in such matters. In the case of lack of inducement or threat, the Court must be conscious of the fact that they were not dealing with criminals. Thus, the Court released the petitioner on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Machilipatnam.
Background
In the present case, the complainant was the victim’s father, and the victim girl and the petitioner were the residents of the same village. It was stated that the petitioner stalked the victim with his deceitful words in the name of the marriage. When the petitioner and the victim were talking to each other over a phone call, the family members of the victim reprimanded her made and made it very clear that they would not perform her marriage with the petitioner. Subsequently, feeling aggrieved by the family members’ words, the victim consumed ants poison powder with water and called the petitioner over a phone. The victim’s cousin of the victim girl took her to the doctor for treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner took the victim to Vijayawada and on the way, at goddess temple, he tied yellow thread over her neck and took her to his relatives’ house and committed sexual assault on the victim.
Further, the victim’s father filed a complaint, and a case was registered for ‘child missing’ under Section 363 IPC. Further, on knowing about the case filed by the victim’s father, the petitioner left the victim at her house and went away. Thus, subsequently, Section was altered from Section 363 to Sections 366 and 376 IPC, Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner was about twenty-one years, and the victim girls was sixteen years five months. The complainant disclosed that these two persons were in love and when it came to the notice of the victim’s family members, she was reprimanded. The family members flatly denied the wish of the victim to the petitioner.
The Court referred to Mahesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2634 and Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 and opined that while dealing with bail applications of this nature, due consideration should be made on various factors like the nature of the offence, heinousness of the crime, punishment and the role of the petitioner involved. The Court opined that prima facie, this was a case of elopement of two people, who were in love, where unfortunately the victim was a minor. Further, the Court opined that adolescent love could not be controlled by the Courts and the Judges had to be careful in granting or denying bails in such matters. In the case of lack of inducement or threat, the Court must be conscious of the fact that they were not dealing with criminals.
The Court clarified that in each case of granting bail, adjudication should depend on its own facts and as in this case, there was consistent version and due to lack of coercion or inducement or threat, it was appropriate to allow the present petition. Thus, the Court released the petitioner on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like sum each to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Machilipatnam.
[Moka Pradeep v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 1043 of 2024, Order dated 06-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate;
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
