Bombay HC grants pre-arrest bail in POCSO case – Times of India

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on July 7 granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs 30,000 in a POCSO case to a man well-known for posting video clips on social media platform.
A 23-year-old had lodged a first information report (FIR) accusing him of raping her as a child since 2013, after expressing his intention to marry her.
The HC said looking at arguments and an August 2020 document between the two, they “were in close, intimate, emotional and physical relationship, but over a period of time it had deteriorated to such an extent that the informant has lodged this F.I.R. against the applicant making serious allegations.’’
The FIR alleged offence continued till last June when she was a major.
Justice Sarang Kotwal in his order protecting the man, said, “In this background, only looking at their long consensual relationship, I am inclined to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. There are allegations that the applicant forced the informant into having unnatural sex. All these allegations are strictly between the parties. At this stage, it would not be proper to make any comments in respect of those allegations. At this stage, it is more than clear that, both of them were having serious relationship for a long period of time to the knowledge of their families and friends.’’
His counsel Sana Khan and advocate Ali Kaashif said the FIR registered in January 2021 was filed after almost nine years. The FIR was under sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of Indian Penal Code and subsequently sections 3 and 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) were added. It said “since June 2020, there was no physical relations between’’ them. In August, he told her he wanted to marry another girl and they “executed a document mentioning their party of ways’’ the HC order noted. He then got married to another girl in November 2020 and thereafter the FIR of alleged rape on false promise of marriage was filed.
Khan said the document contains “clear clauses showing that neither of the parties was to have any claim against each other.’’ She submitted that the informant was giving his contact details online, causing him much “harassment.’’
The informant’s counsel Anjali Patil however said such document was only for “their business relations’’ and cannot be used by him for “defend against allegations of rape’’. She added, in any case such agreement has “no sanctity in law.’’
The HC said the FIR does not allege that she was coerced into executing the document.
Additional Public Prosecutor Swapnil Pednekar opposing the pre-arrest bail plea, said the allegations are for when the informant was a minor, hence her consent is immaterial, and a offence under POCSO is “clearly made out’’.
Justice Kotwal said there is “sufficient force’’ in the prosecutor’s contention that POCSO Act was attracted, but whether allegations are true or false would be a matter of trial. He said the HC was only considering at this stage, whether custodial interrogation is necessary given the background of facts in the case.
The HC as per FIR their relationship goes back to 2012. Whether they had physical relations is a matter for trial, it said adding, “However, their history shows that the promise made by the applicant of getting married with the informant was not a hollow promise, but it was backed by the discussion with the elders in the family. As per the F.I.R., their
relationship continued even after the informant attained majority.’’
The HC however said there was “one more disturbing feature which needs to be taken care of.’’
The parties had made “rival allegations of harassment”. The informant alleged “applicant’s lawyer has posted certain videos, though the matter was under
investigation.’’ “Obviously, this is highly improper,’’ said the HC order noting that his counsel “undertakes that the applicant shall not cause any such harassment directly or indirectly.’’
About his grievances, the HC said he can take steps in accordance with law.
The HC then granted him pre-arrest bail directing his attendance at the police station once in a fortnight till chargesheet is filed, not to leave Indian without prior trial court nod and not to harass the informan, directly or indirectly.