No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Teen, Emphasizes Consensual Relationship in POCSO Case Involving 16-Year-Old

08 October 2024 10:41 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India granted bail to Deshraj @ Musa in Deshraj @ Musa vs State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 11020/2024), who had been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appellant, 18 years old at the time of the incident, was accused of abducting a 16-year-old girl and attempting to commit sexual offenses.

The case originated from FIR No. 77/2024, registered on April 28, 2024, at Thoi Police Station, District Neem Ka Thana. The appellant was charged under IPC Sections 354(D) (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation), 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction with intent to compel marriage), and 376 (rape), along with Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was arrested in May 2024, and the chargesheet was filed on June 5, 2024. His bail applications were initially rejected by both the trial court and the High Court.

The appellant's counsel argued that he was only 18 at the time of the alleged offense and that the victim, 16, was involved in a consensual relationship. They emphasized that the trial would be prolonged, with 12 witnesses yet to be examined. In contrast, the State contended that the victim was a minor and denied any consensual relationship, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges.

The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, decided to grant bail, taking into account the young age of the appellant, the prolonged trial, and the fact that the relationship was claimed to be consensual. The Court imposed strict conditions, including barring the appellant from contacting the victim or influencing witnesses.

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to release the appellant on bail, subject to specific conditions to ensure his cooperation in the trial and prevent any misuse of his liberty.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

Deshraj @ Musa vs State of Rajasthan

 

Similar News