SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kantilal Ratilal Mer T. Koli vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 December, 2017

R/CR.MA/30204/2017 ORDER



STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PARIMALSINH J VAGHELA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SWETA A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR M D RAHEVAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1


Date : 21/12/2017


1. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned
advocate Mr.M.D. Rahevar for the complainant 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-34 of 2017 registered with Chotila police station
for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376,
506(2), 507 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(a), 4
and 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(R)(S) (W-1), 3(2)(5-
A) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendments Act, 2015.

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Fri Dec 22 00:09:52 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/30204/2017 ORDER

3. 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

4. Learned APP, while opposing the application, has
submitted that at the relevant time, the prosecutrix was aged
16 years and 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.

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

6. This is an unusual case of boy and girl having affair. 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
on the ground that the girl is minor and her consent is

7. In the present case, the prosecutrix is 16 years 10
months old and the accused is 28 years old. It appears from

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Fri Dec 22 00:09:52 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/30204/2017 ORDER

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.
Further, no doubt, the applicant is a married person but, it
appears that co-accused – Mr.Sanjaybhai and Mr.Alpeshbhai
are enlarged on bail and, therefore, on the ground of parity
also, 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-34 of
2017 registered with Chotila 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;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse

[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

9. The competent authority will release the applicant only if

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Fri Dec 22 00:09:52 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/30204/2017 ORDER

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.)

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Fri Dec 22 00:09:52 IST 2017

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation