Bombay HC grants pre-arrest bail in POCSO case, cites ‘long consensual relationship’ even major | Mumbai News

MUMBAI: The Bombay Supreme Court granted a man known for posting video clips on social media platforms on July 7th on a personal bail of Rs 30,000 in a POCSO case.
A 23-year-old filed an initial FIR filing allegations of raping her as a child since 2013 after expressing his intention to marry her.
The HC said, referring to the arguments and an August 2020 document between the two, that they “were in a close, intimate, emotional and physical relationship, but had deteriorated over time so that the informant used this FIR against the Applicant makes serious allegations. ”
The crime alleged by the FIR lasted until last June when she was a major.
Judge Sarang Kotwal said in his order for the protection of the man: “Against this background, only in view of their long amicable relationship, I am inclined to give early bail in favor of the applicant. There are allegations that the complainant forced the informant to have unnatural sex. All of these claims are solely between the parties. At this point in time it would not be appropriate to comment on these allegations. At this point it is more than clear that, to the knowledge of their families and friends, both have had a serious relationship over a long period of time. ”
His attorney Sana Khan and attorney Ali Kaashif said the FIR registered in January 2021 was filed after nearly nine years. The FIR was subject to Sections 376 (2) (n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and then Sections 3 and 4 (Penetrative Sexual Assault) of the Child Protection from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO) were added. It says: “As of June 2020, there have been no physical relationships between them. In August he informed her that he was going to marry another girl, and they “made a document mentioning their ways,” says the HC regulation. Then in November 2020 he married another girl and after that the FIR of alleged rape for a false promise of marriage was filed.
Khan said the document contained “clear clauses showing that neither party should have claims against each other”. She alleged that the informant put his contact details online, causing him a lot of “harassment”.
However, the informant’s lawyer, Anjali Patil, said such a document was only intended for “their business dealings” and could not be used by him to “defend rape allegations.” She added that such an agreement definitely “has no legal sanctity”.
The HC said the FIR is not claiming that it was forced to execute the document.
Additional prosecutor Swapnil Pednekar, who opposed the pre-arrest bail plea, said the allegations were underage, so her consent was irrelevant and a POCSO offense “made clear”.
Judge Kotwal said the prosecutor’s allegation that the POCSO bill has been tightened contains “sufficient force” but whether the allegations are true or false would be a matter of trial. He said the HC was only considering at this point whether a custodial interrogation was necessary given the background of the facts in the case.
The relationship between HC and FIR goes back to 2012. Whether or not they had physical relationships was up for trial, it said, adding, “However, their history shows that the applicant’s promise to marry the informant was not a void.” Promise, but it was made through discussion with the elders supported in the family. According to the FIR, theirs
the relationship continued even after the informant came of age. ”
However, the HC said there was “one more troubling quality to address”.
The parties had made “rival allegations of harassment”. The informant alleged that “the applicant’s attorney posted certain videos even though the matter was still ongoing.”
Investigations. “” This is of course highly inappropriate, “says the HC order, stating that his lawyer” is obliged to ensure that the complainant does not cause such harassment either directly or indirectly “.
Regarding his complaints, the HC said he could take steps in accordance with the law.
The HC then granted him bail before his arrest by ordering his visit to the police station every 14 days until an indictment was filed, not to leave Indian without a prior nod and not to harass the informant directly or indirectly.

Related Articles

Back to top button