The Delhi High Court declined bail to a man accused of raping a minor, whom the accused claimed to have married, noting that “the consent of a minor is immaterial and inconsequential in law”.
“Merely because the petitioner (accused) has claimed that marriage had been performed with the victim in a temple, the same cannot sanctify the offence as the victim was a minor and under 15 years of age at the time of the incident,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said in his July 22 order.
Justice Mendiratta said that sexual relationship with a minor is prohibited and the law clearly treats such a relation as an offence.
As per the case details, an FIR was registered at Mayur Vihar police station on the statement of the mother of the girl, who alleged that an unknown person had kidnapped her daughter. The girl was reported missing since July 9, 2019.
The mother later filed a Habeas Corpus application before the High Court seeking an investigation to trace her missing daughter.
The police eventually traced the girl on October 5, last year, along with her eight-month-old female child, to the house of the accused. The girl was also found to be about one-and-a-half months pregnant.
The prosecution argued that the girl was persuaded and kidnapped by the accused, 27.
The accused, on the other hand, stated that he was in custody since October 6, 2021, and the relationship between him and his wife was consensual. In his bail plea, the accused said he is required to look after his wife as well as their child.
The High Court, however, rejected the plea saying, “since the victim was minor at the time of occurrence, even the claim that sexual intercourse was with her consent, is immaterial as the circumstances clearly point out that the minor had been enticed and lured with an intention to have the intercourse”.
“Such incidents of luring a minor and entering into a physical relationship cannot be treated in a routine manner, since rape is not only a crime against the minor victim but a crime against the entire society, which leaves little option for the minor child but to toe the line of the petitioner/accused,” the High Court said.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of accused/petitioner and the fact that victim was aged only about 14 years and 6 months at the time of the incident, the petition is dismissed,” the court ordered.
