The Bombay High Court recently rejected a bail plea, citing concerns that conducting a DNA test on the minor rape victim might not be in the child's best interest and future. The court underscored the unique circumstances arising from the child's adoption, emphasizing that subjecting the child to a DNA test may not align with her welfare or future prospects. Justice GA Sanap, presiding over a single-judge bench at the Bombay High Court, adjudicated the bail application of an individual facing charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for the alleged rape of a minor.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The charges against the applicant, Surender Vijay Paswan, included offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Contentions of the Parties:
The defense, led by Mr. Prabhanjay R. Dave and Mr. Pradeep P. Kumawat, put forth arguments in favour of the bail application. The crux of their contentions lay in the prosecution's purported failure to collect the child's sample, leading to the absence of a DNA report. The defense emphasized the findings of the ossification test, which asserted the victim's age to be 17 years, not exceeding 18 years. They contended that the victim, being cognizant of her actions, engaged in a consensual physical relationship with the accused.
Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, representing the State of Maharashtra, presented counterarguments. The prosecution asserted that the victim was a minor at the time of the crime and expressed apprehensions that granting bail to the accused might lead to intimidation of the victim and prosecution witnesses.
Observations by the Court:
The court, in its order, acknowledged the Investigating Officer's statement regarding the child's adoption and the institution's reluctance to disclose adoptive parents' particulars. Recognizing the reasonableness of these challenges, the court noted the Radiologist's report on the ossification test, affirming the victim's age as 17, with the Medical Officer verifying she was not more than 18.
Decision of the Court:
The High Court, in its decision, highlighted the absence of framed charges against the applicant, coupled with the bleak prospect of trial completion in the near future. Considering these factors, the court exercised its discretion and granted bail to the applicant, deeming further incarceration unwarranted.
Case Title: Surender Vijay Paswan vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice GA Sanap
Case No.: Criminal Bail Application No. 1979 of 2022
Advocates of the Appellant: Prabhanjay R. Dave and Pradeep P. Kumawat
Advocate of the Respondents: Pallavi N. Dabholkar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :