DEVENDRAKUMAR ARVINDSINH THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala for learned Advocate Mr. U.M. Shastri on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11207025201867 of 2020 registered with Godhra Town "A" Division Police Station, District: Panchmahal on 16/12/2020 for offences punishable under Ss. 363 , 366 , 376(2)(n) , 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 4, 6, and 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, 2021.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala would point out to the fact that while the incident as per the FIR has happened during 8/3/2020 to 22/7/2020, the FIR had been registered only on 16/12/2020. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that it appears that the prosecutrix, had eloped from her house and whereas while in the FIR it is mentioned that the present applicant and the prosecutrix were in a relationship and that the present applicant had infact eloped with the prosecutrix on an occasion even before the FIR was registered and whereas it is submitted that insofar as the present instance is concerned, the present applicant, had no role to play with regard to the same. Learned Senior Advocate would draw the attention of this Court to a statement of the prosecutrix dtd. 19/7/2020, i.e. after the prosecutrix had eloped for the second time and whereafter the prosecutrix had been produced before the Investigating Officer where the prosecutrix would submit that she had left her house on her own accord and whereas from her resident situated at Godhra, travelled to Shehra i.e to the place where the present applicant was residing with his maternal uncle and whereas when she had gone to the house of the maternal uncle of the present applicant she had been informed that the applicant did not reside there therefore from the said place, the prosecutrix had travelled to Vadtal i..e to the place where her friend one Jaimika was residing and whereas according to the prosecutrix, while she had left her house of her own accord, during the period when she was residing with her friend, the nationwide lock-down had been imposed and she continued to stay there for a period of almost two months and whereas the prosecutrix is also stated to have informed her brother about the fact that she was staying at the residence of the her friend. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the said statement which had been recorded when the prosecurix had appeared before the Police Station after she left her residence for a second time and for which the FIR in question had been filed clearly shows the completely contrary stand taken by the prosecutrix around five months after her return.