Kishan vs The State & Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 797 Del

                            $~
                            *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                            %                                       Reserved on:        20.01.2022
                                                                    Pronounced on:      21.03.2022
                            +     BAIL APPLN. 3391/2021
                                  KISHAN                                                ..... Petitioner
                                                       Through:     Ms. Surya Rajappan and Mr. Vinayak
                                                                    Batta and Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna,
                                                                    Advocates.

                                                       versus

                                  THE STATE & ANR.                                   ..... Respondent
                                                Through:            Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.

                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
                                          ORDER

% 21.03.2022

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 284/2021 under Sections 363/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station Amar Colony. In brief the facts of the case are that on 08.06.2021 a PCR Call vide DD No. 45 regarding " Sant Nagar Church Garhi, East of Kailash, caller ke beti Ms. P, jise 11 month pahle ek ladka apne saath le gaya, caller vaha jaata hai toh maarne ki dhamki deta hai aur pareshan karta hai, ladke ka naam Krishan hai" was received in the police station. During enquiry, PCR caller 'R' alleged that a boy namely Kishan (present petitioner) kidnapped her daughter Ms. P who was 16 years in Feb 2020 and he kept her with him forcefully. It is the further case of the prosecution that after receiving of the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:21.03.2022 17:14:18 PCR Call, victim Ms. P, age-16 years was examined who stated that she went with petitioner on 20.02.2020 and they got married, and she is residing with petitioner and now she is having pregnancy of six months. She also stated that her parents have knowledge about this and they often visit her at her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the above mentioned case has been registered.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 8.6.2021. He further submitted that complainant got married with petitioner out of her own free will without any coercion force or pressure, and since then they both have been living and enjoying matrimonial life happily. He further submitted that complainant is peacefully living in her matrimonial home. He further submitted that marriage of the petitioner and complainant was duly accepted by the parents of the complainant and they used to visit the matrimonial home of the complainant from time to time. He further submitted that petitioner always endeavoured to provide all the comforts and happiness to his wife, complainant herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 7.6.2021 i.e a day before lodging the said FIR complainant's father had a fight with her daughter and the petitioner, and being the caring husband he tried to protect her and defend her against her father. So, the father of the complainant made a call at 100 number and made false and baseless complaint against the petitioner just to satisfy his ulterior motive. He further submitted that the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C in which she has specifically stated that she left her parents home as her parents used to mentally and physically torture her and they

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:21.03.2022 17:14:18 stopped her education, and they always used to say that they would send her to brothel. He further submitted that on 9.6.2021 the medical examination of the complainant was done, in which she narrated that she knew the petitioner herein since she was 10 years, and she married the petitioner and thereafter had sexual relation after marriage. She also stated that her parents were aware of the marriage and accepted the same as well. She also stated that her parents had filed the complaint for kidnapping and rape against the petitioner on 8.6.2021 which is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that investigation has already been completed and chargesheet in this case has been filed qua the petitioner herein.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the date of birth certificate, was a young boy aged around 18 years at the time of the incident, and in these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in judicial custody, and now he has minor child of six month's old to look after.

4. I have perused the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded on 9.6.2021.

5. Perusal of the statement shows that she had not made a single allegations against the petitioner but in the instant case, it is to be kept in mind that victim was a minor on the date of the offence so her consent to her physical relations with the petitioner is of no consequence.

6. Looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and also victim will testify in the Court and at the trial the consequences of her consent and no consent would be weighed on the date of the incident prosecutrix/victim was around 16 years of age, the petitioner was also 18 years of age, and now they have a girl child who is around six months old,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:21.03.2022 17:14:18 no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody, chargesheet has already been filed. However, the trial will take its own time, petitioner has a six months old girl child, therefore, in these circumstances, he is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.

7. With these observations, the application stands disposed.

8. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J MARCH 21, 2022/ib

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:21.03.2022 17:14:18