Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A single judge bench of Justice Bharathi Dangre, of the Bombay High Court, passed an order granting bail to a minor who was booked for gang-raping a minor.

The case pertains to a case where a minor was gang raped by five adults and the applicant. As per the complainant, the accused had taken the minor to a secluded area and touched her private parts, after which she was threatened to not tell anyone about it. The complainant was later sexually assaulted. The applicant is accused of 376-D, 376(1)(n), 354, 354-D, 114, 509, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Subsequently, after the charge sheet was filed the bail application of the applicant was rejected twice by the Juvenile Justice Board in 2021. After the case was transferred to the children’s court and the special judge rejected the bail. The applicant later moved the High Court seeking bail. 

The advocate for the applicant argued that the accused was 16 years and 5 months old at the time when the offence was committed and belong to a middle-class economic background. He argued, that he had cleared class 10 and he could not complete his further studies due to his father’s financial status, his mother’s illness, and later his detention in an observational home. Further, he also placed on record the 2021 report of the probation officer and child guidance clinic about the applicant’s present psychological and physical status that said he is not a danger to society and recommended opportunities for the applicant to become a “better person”. The applicant informed the court that the applicant's detention is unnecessary and that the applicant was implicated in the case only because of the statement given by the paternal uncle.

The advocate for the respondent argued that if the applicant is released on bail then the life of the victim will be in danger as the applicant resides in the same area. The advocate for the victim’s father also opposed the application.

The single judge bench, allowed the application while granting bail to the applicant and stated in its order that the accusations faced by the applicant are undisputedly serious, but he must also derive the benefit of being a ‘child’, despite being tried as an adult and the benefit of Section 12 (bail of juvenile) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 cannot be denied to him.

Further, the bench also stated that the applicant has positively responded to the rehabilitative efforts, during his stay in the observation home, which is in tune with the Act of 2015 by invoking the principle of repatriation and restoration to the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was in, before the commission of the alleged crime, with no specific reason being traced out as to why he shall not be denied to repatriation and restoration, he deserves his release on bail under Section 12 of the 2015 Act.

 

Case Title: Sandeep Ayodhya Prasad Rajak versus State of Maharashtra