Accused in POCSO Case Receives Anticipatory Bail from Supreme Court2 min read
Published on: September 18, 2022 at 19:24 IST
In Anil Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to a man who had been arrested for allegedly raping and sexually abusing a young girl in violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012.
Following a thorough hearing of the case, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna granted bail to the rape suspect.
“After we have heard learned counsel for the parties without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the matter, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Ordered accordingly.”
“In the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on the terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court, however, the petitioner shall cooperate to participate in the investigation”, the bench stated.
The bench further noted that the investigating officer had submitted a closure report after the inquiry had, at one point, ended.
Later, the Magistrate took notice of the situation and ordered a new investigation in response to the complainant’s protest petition.
The accused in a POCSO case appealed the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to deny him pre-arrest bail, and the court then issued the decision in response.
The petitioner claimed that the high court had refused his request for bail without fully understanding the case’s facts and circumstances.
He argued that the complainant/victim made up the accusation of rape against him in order to get money from him and his family.
“The complainant and her family coerced the petitioner’s family to pay them a sum of Rs 4 Lakhs out of which she grabbed Rs 2.5 Lakhs,” the plea said.
The petitioner’s attorney informed the bench during the hearing on Thursday that the petitioner’s father had filed an extortion case against the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The petitioner further claimed that the police’s final report strongly suggested that the complainant had made false and misleading claims in order to be held accountable for a crime he had not committed.
The petitioner was represented by attorney Namit Saxena.