MS. X V. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

COURT: Supreme Court of India

CORAM: Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21 February 2022

FACTS

The prosecutrix alleged that the second respondent took her to a residential hotel during the relevant time when she was a juvenile and engaged in sexual activity with her under the promise of marrying her. Later, the second respondent refused to wed her and sent her father her illicit videos. On February 18, 2021, the Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi, denied the second respondent’s request for anticipatory bail. On April 3, 2021, the second respondent turned himself in and requested bail. The Jharkhand High Court’s Single Judge has granted the request for bail.

ISSUE RAISED

Whether High Court was right in allowing the bail?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court stated that the high court erred in allowing the application for bail. The Court stated that it is clear from the material placed before the Court that the appellant was barely thirteen years of age on the date when the alleged offense took place. Therefore, the arguments that “there was a love affair” between the appellant and the second respondent and the apparent refusal to marry(which are circumstances) will not have any bearing on the grant of bail.

“Having regard to the age of the prosecutrix and the nature and gravity of the crime, no case for the grant of bail was established.”

Similar Posts