Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Ritik Suresh Millil, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in connection with C.R. No.246 of 2023 registered at Wadala T.T. Police Station for offences under Sections 363, 376(2)(f)(j)(n), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6, 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecutrix, who is the cousin sister of the applicant, alleged three incidents of sexual assault between April and May 2023 when she was 14 years and 6 months old and the applicant was 20 years old. Both resided in the same house along with other family members. The FIR was lodged on 15.08.2023 after the prosecutrix confided in a friend, Kinjal, who then informed her parents. The prosecutrix underwent medical termination of pregnancy on 26.08.2025 and was housed in a rehabilitation center. The court noted discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements: in the FIR she stated that the applicant's mother was sleeping in the bedroom during the first incident, but in her statement to the Medical Counselor on 17.08.2023 she said all family members had gone to work and she was alone. Additionally, the statement to the Medical Counselor omitted the two subsequent incidents in May 2023. The court also considered that the prosecutrix remained silent from April 2023 until August 2023 despite regularly attending tuition classes until mid-July 2023, and the only explanation was fear. The applicant's advocate argued that the silence was a mitigating factor and that the applicant's young age (20 years) and the fact that investigation was complete and charge-sheet filed favored bail. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the possibility of reformation of the young accused warranted grant of bail. The court also noted that the prosecutrix had filed an affidavit dated 08.10.2024 stating that she had no objection to the applicant being enlarged on bail. The court allowed the bail application on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Regular Bail - Discrepancies in Prosecutrix's Statements - The court considered the discrepancies between the FIR and the statement recorded by the Medical Counselor, noting omissions regarding the time of incident, presence of mother, and two subsequent incidents. Held that such discrepancies raise doubt about the prosecution case and warrant grant of bail (Paras 3-5, 8). B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Sections 4, 6, 8 - Age of Accused - Mitigating Factor - The court considered the young age of the accused (20 years) and held that further incarceration may lead him to a criminal path, and bail would give him a realistic chance to reform. Held that the possibility of reformation is a relevant factor in bail matters (Paras 8, 12). C) Criminal Law - Bail - Delay in Lodging FIR - Silence of Victim - The court noted that the prosecutrix remained silent for about four months despite attending tuition classes regularly, and the only explanation was fear. Held that such delay, without satisfactory explanation, is a factor in favor of bail (Paras 9, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC considering the nature of allegations, discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements, and the age of the accused.
Final Decision
The court allowed the bail application and directed that the applicant be released on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not contacting the prosecutrix, and attending trial regularly.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 439 CrPC
- Discrepancies in victim statements
- Age of accused as mitigating factor
- Possibility of reformation
- Consensual relationship defense
- Delay in lodging FIR
