The single bench of Justice Sadhna Jadhav of the Bombay High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including wrongful confinement, rape. He has also been booked under three sections of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act(POCSO).
The accused had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC. An FIR has been lodged by the 20 year old girl who claims to have been 15 at the time of the crime. The FIR was lodged at Panchvati Police Station, Nashik. She says that the applicant had participated in facilitating her marriage with one Nitin Jain. She later learnt from Jain that he had in fact “purchased her 5 lakhs” and that he was from Rajasthan not Ahmedabad contrary to what she was told. She was sexually abused. He refused to “give her the status of a wife.” She later gave birth to two children. Nitin however had abandoned her and was residing in a different village.
The applicant had allegedly visited the complainants’ house along with a woman named Sunita Gavrani asking the complainant’s mother whether she would want her daughter to get “married.”
Justice Jadhav observed in the order- “Upon perusal of the papers of investigation, it is clear that the applicant had engaged Sunita as an agent. That they had lied to the complainant and her helpless mother that the proposed groom hails from Ahmedabad. They had hurriedly got her married at Ahmedabad and she was sent to Rajasthan. Needless to say that the act was committed in collusion with Nitin Jain. Applicant was fully aware that he is resident of Rajasthan. The life of an young girl is ruined when she was a minor.”
When Sanjay Shinde, the applicant’s lawyer argued that his client was innocent and said that “the complainant lived with Nitin Jain for 5 years and there is no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay.” The court observed- “The said submission is unwarranted. The victim was helpless due to her economic condition. Moreover, she had two children. Delay cannot be fatal to prosecution in all cases.”
The application for bail was dismissed and directed the Session Judge expedite the matter and complete the recording of evidence within nine months from the date of framing of charge.
Read the Judgment here.