The single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Akash v. State of Haryana granted bail to the accused of rape under the POCSO act on the ground that the possibility of influencing the witnesses doesn't exist.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was filed by the owner of the house where the victim was working as a maid. Her aunt asked them to keep her in their house till she comes back from West Bengal. After that, the lockdown was imposed and she told them she is 16 years of age. Further, Akash was noticed on the terrace of their house, the victim girl said that the boy has established a physical relationship with her. Thereafter, the request was made to take legal action against the culprit. The present petition is filed for the grant of bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a young boy and falsely implicated in the present case. even the age of the victim that she is a minor is accepted without providing any evidence. It was also submitted that she loved Akash as her father already died and her mother remarried and started living there where she was remarried, she didn’t know anyone else Akash because of this she doesn't want to leave him. The counsel also submit that the petitioner has been imprisoned for more than two years and that the victim has not backed the prosecution's case. He claims that the prosecutrix is likewise not a minor. Counsel contends that because the petitioner has no criminal history and the material witnesses have already been cross-examined, the petitioner has little chance of influencing the witnesses and hence ought to be given bail.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended on the instructions of ASI there are specific allegations against the petitioner. Further, the victim is a 16-year-old minor girl. When her clothes were sent for medical examination, human semen was detected and the DNA report is still awaited. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the victim has supported the case of prosecution neither in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C nor while appearing as PW-7 before the learned Trial Court.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court stated that both the petitioner and the victim knew each other and they were in a consensual relationship as deposed by the victim in her statement under section 164 Cr. PC as well as before the learned trial court. There have been no criminal antecedents and the victim refused to go for medical examination and out of 17 already 7 witnesses have already been examined. Hence, the court is of the view that the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses does not survive. Therefore, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was enlarged on bail.
CASE NAME- Akash v. State of Haryana
CORUM- Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj
DATED- 18.08.2022
CITATION- CRM-M-45568-2021(O&M)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws,com
Picture Source :