Himachal Pradesh HC: Minor’s Consent for Sexual Intercourse is Relevant for Deciding Bail Application of ‘Rape’ Accused - Synopsis
Tarandeep Singh 23 Nov 2020

Himachal Pradesh HC: Minor’s Consent for Sexual Intercourse is Relevant for Deciding Bail Application of ‘Rape’ Accused

In the case Rohit Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh[1], Justice Anoop Chitkara of Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl of 16 years, on the ground that the girl had consented to the sexual intercourse.

The accused is a 20 years old boy, who had been charged under the Section 363, Section 366A and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act on Nov 01, 2020. He had approached the High Court seeking bail as the minor girl had been forced by her family to lodge the false FIR in order to break their love affair. She also informed the police that two to three weeks ago she visited to the Primary School Kandi with the petitioner, where they indulged in coitus in the corridor.

Justice Chitkara observed that the petitioner and victim already knew each other from past three to four months and was in touch through Facebook and phone. As on Oct 29th, 2020 the petitioner took victim to his relative’s place on bike with her consent, participated in marriage on Oct 30th, 2020 where victim stayed with him and they both had sexual intercourse. And dropped the victim back to her home after receiving call from her mother on Oct 31st, 2020.

“The conduct of the victim clearly points out that she had initially gone with the petitioner up to Primary School and after having coitus with him did not reveal the fact to anyone and despite that after two-three weeks of her own voluntarily accompanied him. Although, she could not have consented for sexual intercourse as well as leaving custody of her custodian but for deciding the bail, her conduct is sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner.” The Bench held while considering the victim’s conduct and justifying bail to petitioner.

The court had also highlighted that “An analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation and the period of incarceration already undergone would make out a case for bail.”



[1] Cr. MP (M) No. 2001 of 2020

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com