Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to accused in POCSO case

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to a man booked for allegedly sexually assaulting and raping a minor girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 [Anil Meena v. State of Rajasthan]..A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna after hearing the case in detail granted bail to the rape accused."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 also noted that after the investigation was over at one stage, a closure report was filed by the investigating officer. Thereafter, it was on complainant’s protest petition, that the Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and directed it for re-investigation..The Court issued the order on an appeal that was moved by the accused in a POCSO case challenging the order of the Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court that denied him pre-arrest bail.The petitioner contended that high court had denied him bail without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.He contended that the complainant/victim accused him of committing rape just to extort 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.During the hearing on Thursday, the counsel for the petitioner informed the bench that the father of the petitioner has filed a complaint of extortion, under section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), against the complainant.The petitioner further alleged that the final report submitted by the police clearly hinted that complainant had given false and fallacious statements, in order to implicate the him for a crime which he had not committed.Advocate Namit Saxena represented the petitioner.