Sunny Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

1 This is the first application un1er Section 438 Cr PC for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No 429/2017 under Section 3 76/342 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act registered at Police Station - Neb Sarai.

2 The case of the prosecution is that an FIR in the instant case was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix, who is about 16 years of age, alleging that on 17.08.2017 the applicant took her to the shop of his friend and committed rape upon her. Her medical examination was conducted on 19.08.20 17 and her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded on 22.08.2017 wherein she corroborated the facts as stated in her complaint. After the registration of the FIR, the BAIL APPLN. 2135/2017, 2017:DHC:8514 complainant/prosecutrix went missing and another FIR was registered to this effect. The complainant/prosecutrix was traced on 12.10.2017. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded wherein she disclosed that she was with applicant during her missing period. Non Bailable Warrants were issued against the applicant and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.PC have been initiated against him. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant and the complainant/prosecutrix were having an affair and the complainant/prosecutrix left the house of her parents and joined the company of the applictit of her own; that the family members of the compláinant/proseëütrix and the applicant have agreed to solemnize their,marriage and a Compromise Deed dated 07.10.2017 has been exepted; that the actual age of the complainant/prosecutrix is about 1 years Status report hasbeen filédt1èr4sécution.

5 Learned APP for the Stàtë vehemently opposed the present application and argued that the present case involves Section 376/372 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO'Act, hence no question of compromise arises in the instant matter as the age of the complainant/prosecutrix is about 14 years as per her school certificate; that the applicant is absconding and deliberately evading the process of law; that there is every possibility of hampering the evidence and influence of the witnesses, if the applicant is enlarged on bail. BAIL APPLN. 2135/2017 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The instant case involves Section 4 of POCSO Act. The date of birth of the complainant/pFosecutrix as per school record is 15.11.2003 which is strengthened by an affidavit tendered by the mother of the complainant/prosecutrix before the school. Hence, its leaves no doubt that the age of the complainant/prosecutrix was 14 years at the time of alleged offence. Once it comes on record that the complainant/prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time, hence, there is no question pf her giving consent and the consent, if any, was irrelevant.. The medical examination of the complainant/prosecutrix cpnductedon 19.08.2017 suggests that she was sexually assaulted. Further, the applicant is absconding and evading the process of law and process under Section 82 Cr PC has been initiated against him Keeping in view the facts and circuistances of the present case and the nature of the offence involved in the instant matter, I do not find the present case fit to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. (jC SANGI] OCTOBER' _,2017 gr BAIL APPLN. 2135/2017 Page3of[3]