Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court, emphasising the need for reform and rehabilitation of young offenders rather than punitive incarceration, has granted bail to a 20-year-old man accused of raping his minor cousin.

The court, presided over by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, observed: “if a chance is given to the Applicant because of his young age by enlarging him on bail, there is a possibility that he will be remorseful and repent in retrospect. This is a chance required to be taken by the Court because punishment has to be believed to be inflicted for a reformative result rather than being punitive in nature.”

The court also said, “While considering Bail Application in such facts, Court feels that reform and rehabilitation of the under trial accused needs to be considered especially when age of the accused is young so that the accused gets an opportunity / or is given an opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and earn his livelihood honorably from the perspective of social integration. This is a chance which the Court must take considering the young age of accused.”

The case involved allegations of rape against the accused/ applicant for engaging in sexual intercourse with his 14-year-old cousin on multiple occasions. The victim, an orphan, was residing with the accused and his family for about 3 years. According to the prosecution, she was sexually assaulted multiple times in April and May 2023. However, she lodged a complaint only in August 2023, after confiding in a friend and seeking help from her friend’s parents. The prosecutrix also got pregnant and underwent a medical termination of pregnancy.

The accused was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act but he contended that the relationship was consensual.

The court found discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s statements, particularly her silence following the incidents. The court acknowledged that while delays in reporting offences are not necessarily detrimental to the prosecution's case, the prolonged silence, in the present case, when the prosecutrix was otherwise behaving normal intrigued the court.

“The question before the Court that remains unanswered is why did the prosecutrix keep silent from April 2023 upto August 2023. It is seen that prosecutrix was a student of 10th Standard she was regularly attending her tuition classes upto 20.07.2023 according to her own statement. The only reason stated is that she was scared to reveal about the incidents,” the court noted.

The court took note of the prosecutrix’s disadvantaged background as an orphan but emphasised that the age difference of only four years between the accused and the prosecutrix could have played a role in the incidents.

While granting bail, the court held that keeping the accused in custody before conviction would amount to punishment. Underscoring the need of giving the accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the society, the court said, “If the Applicant is incarcerated in prison further, there is every possibility that he might loose faith in the institution and society at large and may tread the path of criminality or would waste his life. Incarceration in prison statistically shows that it exposes many youth to abuse. There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why Court feels that any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative approach in punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of young offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk should be constructively taken by the Court in the case of young offenders – accused before committing such accused to further custody and give such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the Society.”

The court further expressed: “I am of the opinion that incarceration of the Applicant in prison considering his young age is likely to worsen his likelihood of success in every sphere of society and it will expose him to abuse.”

Consequently, the court granted bail to the accused. However, it clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not influence the trial's final outcome.

 

Cause Title: Ritik Suresh Millil V State of Maharashtra and Ors. [BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2732 OF 2024]

Appearance: For the Applicant- Advocate Rahul Siddiqui; For the State-Additional Public Prosecutor Shilpa Gajare–Dhumal; For the Victim- Advocate Huma Shaikh