Babbloo @ Honey vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.118/2018 of Women Police Station, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 KA, 376(2)JH IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the petitioner was in relationship with the daughter of the complainant for quite some time and she eloped with him as per her own free will. It is also submitted that though in the FIR, the complainant has stated that the age of his minor daughter is 14 years but in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has stated that the age of his minor daughter is 16 years. It is submitted that the minor daughter of the complainant in her statements has admitted that she lived with the petitioner for three days. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact the relation between the petitioner and the minor daughter of the complainant were consensual, however, later on, she has levelled the allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault against the petitioner under the pressure of her family members. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case will take time, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that even if it is assumed that the age of the minor daughter of the complainant was 16 years on the day of the incident, then also her consent would be of no significance as per the provision of POCSO Act. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the minor daughter of the complainant in her statements has levelled allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault against the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner of kidnapping a minor girl and rape upon her, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence and after perusing the copy of the charge-sheet, filed along with this bail application, and taking into consideration the fact that the daughter of the complainant was minor on the day of the incident and has levelled allegations against the petitioner of kidnapping and sexual assault, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.