13 February 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

In a recent order of Mohammed Ajaan Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra and Another, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a 22-year-old man accused of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, emphasized the prima facie evidence suggesting a consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant, who was 16 at the time of the alleged incidents.

The case stemmed from an FIR filed by the complainant, alleging repeated instances of rape over a 15-month period. The complainant stated that she had known the accused for four years and had been in a love relationship with him for two years. The prosecution's case rested on the complainant's FIR, where she described being coerced into a sexual relationship under the guise of an excursion. The FIR also mentioned two pregnancies and subsequent medical terminations of pregnancy (MTPs).

The accused's lawyer argued that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was filed with a significant delay of over 15 months after the first alleged incident. He highlighted the complainant's own statements, including admissions of consensual intercourse made to a psychiatrist, and pointed to the fact that the complainant's mother was aware of the relationship and the first MTP but did not report it. He argued that the complainant's initial silence, coupled with her mother's inaction, strongly suggested a consensual relationship. The defense also pointed out discrepancies between the complainant's statements in the FIR and her medical records.

The prosecution, however, argued that the complainant's consent was immaterial given her age and the power dynamic at play. They emphasized her vulnerability and the trauma she experienced, which they argued contributed to the delay in reporting. They cited a previous ruling of the High Court, stating that delays in filing FIRs in such cases should not automatically benefit the accused. The lawyer representing the complainant, appointed by the court, highlighted the complainant's statements in the FIR alleging force and coercion, and emphasized the difficult family circumstances the complainant faced.

After reviewing the case, Justice Pitale observed that the complainant and the accused were in a love relationship and a physical relationship for 15 months. The judge noted the complainant's admissions of consensual sex and the two pregnancies and MTPs, which further supported the view of a consensual relationship. The court referred to Supreme Court precedents that acknowledge the evolving understanding of relationships among young people, and cited a previous Bombay High Court ruling that considers the consent of a minor in such cases as a mitigating factor, especially during bail applications.

The court emphasized the distinction between violent and consensual acts in such cases, and noted the absence of any criminal record for the accused. The judge stressed the importance of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and preventing witness tampering, but concluded that the accused deserved bail.

The bail was granted with specific conditions, including a personal bond, regular reporting to the police, cooperation with the investigation, restrictions on leaving the state, and prohibitions on contacting the complainant or tampering with evidence. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and should not be considered a reflection on the merits of the case, which the trial court would adjudicate independently. The court also acknowledged the work of the lawyer appointed to represent the complainant and directed the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority to compensate her.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012  

Section 154., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973