Rakesh @ Lalo Natubhai Thakore vs State Of Gujarat & on 24 August, 2017

R/CR.MA/16843/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 16843 of 2017

RAKESH @ LALO NATUBHAI THAKORE….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MEHUL A SURATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDIK K RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS CM SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA

Date : 24/08/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned
A.P.P. for the respondent – State.

2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R.
being C.R.No.I-8 of 2017 registered with Sardarnagar Police
Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of
the POCSO Act, Sections 3(2)(5)b, 3(1)(w)(1)(11) of the Atrocity
Act.

3. Briefly stated, daughter of the complainant had love
affair with one Mr.Harshil and to get marry with him, she left
her parental home and as she did’nt have her mobile phone,
she took the help of one unknown person i.e. the present

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 22:32:12 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/16843/2017 ORDER

applicant and tried to contact Mr.Harshil by way of using
mobile phone of the present applicant but, said Mr.Harshil did
not reply and by way of which, present applicant and daughter
of the complainant came into contact at mid night and have
spent night in the village of Naroda and then fall in love and
decided to get marry with each other and with consent of her,
intercourse had taken place.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant and the prosecutrix were in love with each other
and the prosecutrix accompanied the applicant of her own and
thereby, abandoned the guardianship of her parents
voluntarily.

5. Learned APP, while opposing the application, has
submitted that at the relevant time, the prosecutrix was aged
15 years 10 months. She being the minor, the question of
consent does not arise and therefore, the offence u/s 376 read
with POCSO Act has been committed and therefore, the
applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

6. This is an unusual case of boy and girl having affairs. As
the prosecutrix was minor, the applicant is sent behind prison
because of the complaint lodged by the father of the
prosecutrix. Undoubtedly, a minor girl is to be protected under
law as there are number of instances of sexual abuses of minor
girls and therefore, there is a special legislation of POCSO in
the year 2012 and amendment in sections 375 and 376 of the
IPC in 2014. The judiciary takes a very serious note of sexual
offences against women and specially against minor girls.
Upon reading of the statement of the prosecutrix, they both
eloped. Further, the trial Court rejected bail application mainly

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 22:32:12 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/16843/2017 ORDER

on the ground that the girl is minor and her consent is
immaterial.

7. In the present case, the prosecutrix is 15 years 10
months old and the accused is 20 years old. It appears from
the record and the statement of the prosecutrix that the
prosecutrix was in love with the applicant and left the home of
her own and moved with the applicant at various places.
These are the mitigating factors and therefore, present
application deserves consideration.

8. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is
ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-8 of
2017 registered with Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad
on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant
shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of
the prosecution;

[c] not leave the territory of India without prior
permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[d] appear before the Investigation Officer
concerned, as and when required for
investigation purpose and attend the Court
concerned regularly.

[e] furnish the present address of residence along
with the proof to the I.O. concerned and also
to the Court at the time of execution of the
bond and shall not change the residence
without prior permission of Sessions Court
concerned;

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 22:32:12 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/16843/2017 ORDER

9. The competent authority will release the applicant only if
the applicant is not required in connection with any other
offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above
conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be
free to take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be
executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the
case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with
law. At the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this
stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

10. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.

(S.H.VORA, J.)
Hitesh

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Fri Aug 25 22:32:12 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *