Click here to read\/download the judgement.<\/a> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By Pradyumna Satish The victim’s mother lodged an FIR on 09.07.2023 regarding an incident on 04.07.2023, alleging offences of rape and other related charges against the applicant and his family under Sections 376(2)N, 328, 120-B, 506, 452, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 5L, 5J(ii) and 6 POCSO Act. The complaint stated that the applicant’s relationship with the victim resulted in her pregnancy, and she was four months pregnant at the time of filing the FIR.\u00a0 DNA testing confirmed that the applicant and the victim are the biological parents of the child. On 30.07.2024, the applicant was granted interim bail after expressing willingness to marry the victim and care for her child. However, as the marriage did not occur, the applicant surrendered on 20.11.2024 and has remained in custody since. The present matter is a plea by the applicant, seeking bail by citing his prolonged detention. \u202fThe Court emphasized that sexual violence is a grave violation of a person\u2019s right to privacy, dignity, and self-esteem, especially when the victim is a helpless child. In terms of child rights, the Court highlighted the heightened vulnerability and traumatic impact on children who are victims of sexual violence.\u00a0 Considering the seriousness of the offence, the role of the applicant, the severity of the punishment, and the DNA report confirming parenthood, the Court held that there were no valid grounds to release the applicant.\u00a0 The bail application was rejected due to the grave nature of the offence and placing reliance on the traumatic impact on the victims and the subsequent breach of certain constitutional guarantees, as in right to privacy, dignity and self-esteem.\u00a0 \u202f Case Title: Arvind v. State of U.P. Citation: Cr. Misc. Bail Application 56177\/2023. Click here to read\/download the judgement. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":15995,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-updates"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15994"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15994\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15996,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15994\/revisions\/15996"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15995"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jgu.edu.in\/child-rights-clinic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}