Minor's Consent For Sexual Intercourse Relevant For Deciding Bail Application Of Rape Accused

BACKGROUND

• The Himachal Pradesh high court recently granted bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl on the ground that the girl had consented to sexual intercourse.
• Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that for granting the bail, her conduct is a sufficient condition to be considered before the court.
• The case is now known as Rohit Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No.
• "Although, she could not have consented for sexual intercourse as well as leaving custody of her custodian but for deciding the bail, her conduct is sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner," Justice Anoop Chitkara observed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The accused, twenty-year-old Rohit Sharma approached the high court seeking regular bail because the girl was forced to lodge a false complaint against him by her family members. He claimed that he knew her well before the incident through Facebook and they talked for a period of three to four months. The girl also confirmed the statements later on.
• Further, the court also noted that on 3oth October they participated in a marriage where the victim stayed with him and performed the intercourse. As per the conduct of the victim, it was inferred that she had gone to primary school with him and did not reveal it to anyone.
• It was only later when the accused was arrested that she voluntarily accepted and said that the intercourse took place with her consent and it was not a rape.
• The court further added that an analysis of the whole case revealed that the accused was not at fault and bail shall be given to him on the grounds that he did not force the victim for sexual intercourse and it was willingly done at the consent of both the parties.
• The family of the girl registered a false complaint against the man and accused him of raping their daughter. As a result, he was put under arrest for some time but when he approached the high court justice was served to him.
• Just because a girl is a minor does not imply that her consent is not relevant to the facts of the case and the consent of a minor must be taken into full consideration before deciding a case.

OUTCOME

• Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in Chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
• The terms and conditions are that the petitioner will have to give security to the concerned Court(s) for attendance. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer. Whenever the investigation takes place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM. The petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
• The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required, and in the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted by the present order.
• The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.
• Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted.
• The most important one was that the petitioner shall neither stare, stalk, make any gestures, remarks, call, contact, message the victim, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, nor roam around the victim's home. The petitioner shall not contact the victim.

DO YOU THINK THE COURT’S DECISION WAS TAKEN KEEPING IN MIND GOOD CONSIENCE AND JUSTICE? MENTION YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BELOW!