13 April 2022 3:17 AM GMT
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has recently granted bail to the Applicant accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4,6 and 12 of the POCSO Act. Justice AS Supehia observed: "The first step of turning him into a hardcore criminal will be sending him behind bars. The moment he is allowed to go behind bars, the efforts to make him a...
The Bench comprising Justice AS Supehia has recently granted bail to the Applicant accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4,6 and 12 of the POCSO Act. Justice AS Supehia observed:
"The first step of turning him into a hardcore criminal will be sending him behind bars. The moment he is allowed to go behind bars, the efforts to make him a good and law abiding citizen will get dented. The applicant is a young student studying in First Year college and it is expected from him to observe and follow the fundamental duties of a good citizen as enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution of India."
The facts of the case were that the mother of the prosecutrix filed an FIR contending that her daughter was in a relationship with the Applicant for one and a half years and was forced by the Applicant to meet frequently. Further, around one year before the FIR, the Applicant had met the Prosecutrix and had taken her to an open ground wherein she was forced to have physical relationship. It was also alleged that she was promised marriage by the Applicant and whenever the victim resisted the act, the Applicant used to threaten her. Accordingly, due to delay in determining whether the FIR should be filed, the FIR was filed by 2022.
The Applicant, per contra, averred that the Applicant was a minor at the time when the alleged offence was committed. He had no past antecedents registered against him and that this was a "classic case" of a love affair between the Applicant and the victim and the FIR was filed only when the parents of the victim came to know about the relationship. Additionally, the Applicant gave an assurance to the parents of the victim that he would stay away from her. It was even alleged that the victim had visited the house of the Applicant late at night even as the Applicant requested her to return. The parents of the victim had threatened the Applicant with weapons such as pipe, sticks etc and caused damage to the property of the Applicant.
Taking note of the Supreme Court's decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2011 (1) SCC 694, the Bench observed that this was a case of a physical relationship between two parties who did not know the "rigours of the law" and the "social fabric" to which they were attached. Further, the physical relationship between the parties took place when the Applicant was a minor. The Bench opined that by sending the Applicant to jail, the Applicant will not remain a law-abiding citizen. Further, it was expected that he follows the fundamental duties of a good citizen under Article 51A. Justice Supehia did not find anything "shocking nor serious" which could impede the granting of bail under Section 438 of CrPC. Accordingly, keeping in view the conditions laid down by the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831, the Bench granted bail to the Applicant.
Case Title: ARYAN SIRIS GARANGE (ARAYAN SHIRISH GARANGE) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Case No.: R/CR.MA/5692/2022
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment