High CourtsSingle Bench

Kamal Nayan vs State

Delhi High Court · Decided on 27 August 2018 · Citation: (2018) 08 DEL CK 0458

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6, 363 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 375, 376
RESULT
Diposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1711 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 365 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 1190/2016 Police Station Samaipur Badli initially registered under Sections 363 & Section 6 of POCSO Act

and subsequently, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 376/363/366 IPC.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated as the prosecutrix had voluntarily gone with the petitioner to his

village where they got married. He submits that the prosecutrix has appeared before the trial Court and in her statement recorded on 05.06.2018,

categorically stated that she left with the petitioner on 28.11.2016, on her will and there after they got married. He submits that the prosecutrix was

over 16 years of age when she left her home with her own consent.

3.

Learned counsel submits that in view of exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15

years of age, is not rape. He submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Exception 2 and from the testimony of the prosecutrix no

offence is made out under Sections 375/376.

4.

Learned APP submits that the age of the prosecutrix as recorded is 04.11.2000. This shows that the prosecutrix allegedly

went with the petitioner after she has completed the age of 16 and thereafter they got married.

5.

The prosecutrix is present in court and identified by the Investigating Officer. She confirms the contentions of the petitioner.

6.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and on perusal of the records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of

regular bail. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Trial Court, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case. The petitioner shall not do anything, which may prejudice either

the trial or the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not leave the country without permission of the Trial Court.

7.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

8.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.