Victim’s initial statement, romantic relationship mitigating factors in POCSO bail plea: Delhi HC

New Delhi, Oct 7 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a 20-year-old man accused under the POCSO Act, observing that the romantic relationship between him and the 14-year-old victim, coupled with her initial statement that she had left home on her own and had no complaint against anyone, were mitigating factors that tilted the balance in favour of bail.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the documents on record showed an intimate and romantic relationship between the applicant and the victim, who had posted photographs of the two on Instagram expressing her love for him.

"The Court cannot ignore the young age of both the applicant as well as the victim. The documents on record show the intimate and romantic relationship between the applicant and the victim. Further, in her initial statement, the victim stated in categorical terms that she had left the house of her own accord and that she did not want to make any complaint against anyone. These facts cannot be disregarded and serve as mitigating factors which tilt the balance towards grant of bail to the applicant," the bench said.

Justice Pushkarna was dealing with the third regular bail application filed by Vicky, who has been in judicial custody for more than three years in connection with an FIR registered at Aman Vihar Police Station in July 2023.

The FIR was initially registered on a missing complaint lodged by the victim's father after his minor daughter did not return home after leaving for school on July 28, 2023. She was traced on July 30 and brought to the police station.

In its order, the High Court recorded that during counselling at the police station, the victim stated that she had left home in anger after being scolded by her mother and had gone to her maternal aunt's house. She also stated that she had no complaint against anyone and that no one had done anything wrong to her.

The victim subsequently gave another statement alleging that the applicant had kept her against her will and sexually assaulted her, following which provisions relating to sexual assault and the POCSO Act were added to the FIR.

The High Court noted that the victim was 14 years and eight months old at the time of the incident, while the applicant was 20 years and four months old. It further noted that the applicant and the victim had been in a relationship for several months before the incident and that the victim had posted various photographs of the applicant on Instagram, including photographs of the two in intimate positions.

The High Court also took note of the fact that the victim had made different statements on different dates.

During the hearing, the applicant's counsel had submitted that the two were in a love relationship for around eight to nine months before the incident and that their relationship was public and known to others.

Counsel also argued that the applicant had already spent more than three years in custody, had no criminal antecedents, was a permanent resident of Delhi, and did not possess a passport.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution submitted that the allegations were of an extremely grave nature involving a minor and that consent was irrelevant in proceedings under the POCSO Act.

The complainant's counsel also opposed the plea, submitting that the victim had subsequently made categorical allegations of sexual assault and that the prosecution witnesses had corroborated each other.

However, the High Court said that the applicant had already undergone more than three years of judicial custody and that the trial was likely to take time. There are 19 prosecution witnesses in the case, of whom only the victim and her father had been examined so far, it added.

The High Court also took note of the forensic evidence. As per the FSL report, the DNA profiles of the applicant and the victim were accounted for in a mixed DNA profile obtained from the blanket recovered from the alleged place of incident.

However, no male DNA could be generated from the cervical swabs and smears of the victim.

Justice Pushkarna referred to an earlier judgment, in which the High Court had considered factors such as the age of the accused and the victim, their relationship, discrepancies in their statements and other real-life circumstances while considering bail in a POCSO case.

"In the facts and circumstances of the present case," the High Court said, it was inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Justice Pushkarna directed the applicant to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and provide his permanent and current residential addresses to the investigating officer. He was also directed to keep his mobile number operational and report to the jurisdictional police station every Monday at 9 a.m.

The High Court also directed that he should not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with evidence. It clarified that its observations were made only for deciding the bail application and would neither influence the trial proceedings nor be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Source: IANS