Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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

 

Latest Legal News