JAMMU<\/em>: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court<\/a><\/strong> at Jammu, in an order delivered by Justice M.A. Chowdhary<\/strong>, granted bail to two accused who were alleged to have sheltered a boy and a minor girl who had eloped. The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Samba under Sections 363, 366, 120-B, 212 IPC<\/strong> along with Sections 3, 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter began when the complainant informed the police that his granddaughter had gone missing and suspected that a boy who used to call her had taken her away. During the investigation, the police traced the accused and alleged that the applicants had provided shelter to the couple<\/strong> after they eloped. The minor girl was later recovered, and the main accused was arrested.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n During the investigation, some other accused were granted bail, but the trial court rejected the bail plea of the present applicants. Challenging that decision, they approached the High Court seeking bail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The applicants argued that they had been falsely implicated and that the girl had willingly left with the main accused due to a love relationship<\/strong>. According to them, they only provided temporary shelter<\/strong>, believing that both were of marriageable age and had no knowledge that the girl was a minor<\/strong>. They also pointed out that they were not directly involved in the alleged offence and had already been in custody since July 2024<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution opposed the bail plea, arguing that the allegations involved serious and non-bailable offences, including provisions of the POCSO Act and therefore, bail should not be granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the matter, the Court referred to established legal principles governing bail and observed that courts must consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the possibility of influencing witnesses.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the matter, the Court referred to established legal principles governing bail and observed that courts must consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the possibility of influencing witnesses.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, the Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cElement of love between the applicant\/accused and victim as alleged in the complaint, age of victim as 17 years, elopement, applicants being relatives of the main accused not directly involved, and are stated to have abetted sexual offences, committed by the main accused who is their relative, are factors which persuade this court to allow the application and to admit applicants\/accused to bail.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the charges framed against the applicants in the case and their continued incarceration since their arrest, without reference to the prosecution evidence, lest it may prejudice trial of the case, this Court is of the opinion that case is made out to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicants on regular bail.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed that the applicants be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs.50,000 each and complying with conditions such as providing their permanent address, not influencing witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on every date of hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 363 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishes kidnapping of a minor.<\/td> FIR alleged the minor girl was taken away.<\/td><\/tr> Section 366 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Kidnapping or abduction for marriage.<\/td> Added due to allegation of elopement.<\/td><\/tr> Section 120-B IPC<\/strong><\/td> Criminal conspiracy.<\/td> Allegation that multiple persons helped the act.<\/td><\/tr> Section 212 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Harbouring an offender.<\/td> Applicants allegedly gave shelter to the couple.<\/td><\/tr> Section 3 POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Defines penetrative sexual assault.<\/td> Applied against the main accused.<\/td><\/tr> Section 4 POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.<\/td> Linked to the allegation against the main accused.<\/td><\/tr> Section 17 POCSO Act<\/strong><\/td> Punishes abetment of POCSO offences.<\/td> Applicants accused of assisting the main accused.<\/td><\/tr> Section 29 POCSO Act<\/strong><\/td> Presumption of guilt in certain offences.<\/td> Court discussed its legal implication.<\/td><\/tr> Section 483 BNSS<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Provision relating to bail powers.<\/td> Bail application filed under this provision.<\/td><\/tr> Section 437 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Rules for bail in non-bailable offences.<\/td> State relied on it to oppose bail.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n