Bhavesh Valajibhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 11 May, 2017

R/CR.MA/11447/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 11447 of 2017

BHAVESH VALAJIBHAI PARMAR….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR HB SINGH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

Date : 11/05/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. HB Singh for the applicant
and learned APP 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.
registered at C.R. No. I – 14/2017 with Odhav Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376
of the IPC and u/s 3(A) 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Singh for the applicant has
submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix were in love
with each other and the prosecutrix wanted to marry the
applicant accused. It was submitted that act was concessional
and the applicant accused did not take any advantage of the
girl. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu May 11 23:44:12 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11447/2017 ORDER

statement of the prosecutrix, which was recorded by the
investigating officer.

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

READ  Naresh Sah @ Ram Naresh Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 10 May, 2017

5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties in great detail and perused the records.

6. This is an usual case of boy and girl having affair and
then, they eloped and got married. 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 to marry. Further, the trial Court rejected bail
application vide its order dated 21.04.2017 mainly on the
ground that the girl is minor and her consent is immaterial.

7. In the present case, the prosecutrix is 17 years old and
the accused is 21 years old. It appears from the record and
the statement of the prosecutrix that the prosecutrix was in

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu May 11 23:44:12 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11447/2017 ORDER

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 –
14/2017 with Odhav Police Station, 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;

READ  Ms. Swati Maindola vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 July, 2017

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

[b] not act in a manner injuries 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;

9. The Authorities 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

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu May 11 23:44:12 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/11447/2017 ORDER

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.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J.)
Tausif

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu May 11 23:44:12 IST 2017

READ  Sofyan vs State on 30 March, 2017

Leave a Comment

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