The Gujarat High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused arrested under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act while observing that the Prosecutrix improved the versions of allegations.
A single judge bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel allowing the bail petition filed by Salimbhai Ibrahimbhai Mir noted, “As far as the alleged incidents are concerned, it appears that in a statement dated 22.03.2022 the prosecutrix does not state about any offence committed by the present applicant. In a statement dated 01.04.2022 while the allegation of rape has been made, what would be pertinent to mention is that in the said statement the present applicant is stated to have offered liquor to the prosecutrix and whereas after consuming the same, the prosecutrix had allegedly lost consciousness and where after the applicant is allegedly have taken advantage of the prosecutrix. It appears that in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure a further improved version is stated by the prosecutrix”.
Following this, the bench granted bail to the accused on it executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000 with one surety of like amount.
As per the prosecution case, APP LB Dabhi submitted that the prosecutrix was a young girl aged around 17 years and was unaware of the ways of the world and upon the prosecutrix going to the house of the 62-year-old petitioner, instead of protecting the prosecutrix, he had taken advantage by intoxicating her. Hence the police had invoked offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
The petitioner’s counsel ND Nanavaty submitted that the prosecutrix had travelled out of her own volition and the petitioner, in need of a domestic helper, had taken permission from the parents to employ her and fulfil her educational needs. As per FIR, the Prosecutrix did not intend to return to her house and neither did the parents take her back. Accordingly, she was sent to an NGO where after 8 days, she alleged that the petitioner had offered alcohol to her and later committed rape.
At the outset, the High Court relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694 and noted that the Prosecutrix had given varying versions of her leaving the home and that the petitioner was not instrumental in the Prosecutrix leaving her residence.
The Court directed further that it would be open for the investigating agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The petitioner shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of the such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate.
Read More: Gujarat HC Refuses To Abort 30-Week Pregnancy Of Minor Rape Survivor
