Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 24: On a day when State Cabinet approved, death for the rapists of women under-12, High Court rapped the State for its casual approach towards rape cases despite battery of lawyers being engaged for the same.
Justice MK Hanjura while hearing bail application of an alleged rapist, observed that the lackadaisical, inattentive, incurious and indolent attitude of the State in rape case of a minor girl sends shivers down the spine of a man projects a tale of woes.
“A battery of lawyers has been engaged by the State to conduct and handle the matters, in which the State is a party, but one gets dismayed to see that even in cases involving horrifying and serious crimes the approach of the State is abject, dismal and desolate”, Justice Hanjura said.
HC said that the State has failed to file the objections in answer to the instant bail application, although a number of opportunities have been provided to the Counsel representing the State.
Justice Hanjura observed that rape is a barbaric act and the Government is not taking these matters seriously. He directed the copy of rejection of bail in rape be forwarded to Chief Secretary of the State to take stock of
Government’s casualness in such matters.
HC, while dismissing the bail application of an accused rapist said, the Section 376 RPC is non-compoundable and falls within the category of cases where the law does not permit it to be settled on the wishes of the parties.
Court said, it is a wrong done against the State and the society. Therefore, this argument is also a specious one. “A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State so that he can take a stock of how casual the State deals with the matters that are serious and sensitive”, Justice Hanjura directed.
It was in the month of July 2017, a girl child aged approximately nine years was alleged to have been exploited sexually by the accused/petitioner-Mohammad Shafi Sheikh in a brick kiln situated at Patlibagh, Budgam.
On action by the Police a case for offences U/s 376, 363 RPC bearing FIR No. 166/2017, was registered against Sheikh, as a consequence of which the investigation commenced.
During the course of the investigation of the case, Police came to the conclusion that the girl child was kidnapped and raped by the accused. The statement of the victim was recorded U/s 164-A CrPc by a local Magistrate.
On the conclusion of the investigation of the case the police laid a charge-sheet against the accused before the committal Court which ultimately landed into the Court of Sessions Judge, Budgam.
The accused filed an application for the grant of bail before the Court of Sessions Judge, Budgam which was rejected by the Court with the view that the accused is involved in a case for the commission of offences U/s 363, 376 and 354 RPC.
Aggrieved by the order of rejection of bail by the Sessions Court, Budgam, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court by filing a subsequent application for the grant of bail in his favour on the grounds that the medical examination of the victim does not vouch for the commission of rape.
The father of the victim has filed a petition U/s 561-A CrPC before this Court wherein he has urged that proceedings initiated against the accused be quashed on the ground that there is no truth or substance in the FIR. The parties have arrived at an amicable settlement.
In sexual offences, Court said, when there is sufficient evidence available on record pointing out to the probability of guilt of the accused, the Courts have to be slow in granting the concession of bail to the accused.
“There is prima facie evidence on record to establish the culpability of the petitioner in the commission of the crime imputed to him and therefore, there is every apprehension that in the event of his release on bail he will flee from the justice”, read the order.
Therefore, court said, the petitioner-Sheikh cannot be given the concession of bail in an offence like the present one.
“The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some contradictions in the case and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to be admitted to bail is an argument in despair”, court said while rejecting those submissions.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, is all the more damaging for the petitioner as in such a situation, it has to be presumed that an endeavor is made to win over the witnesses cited in the prosecution case.
“The up-shot of the above discussion is that, the application of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. It entails dismissal as a consequence of which the same is dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall not get swayed by any observation that has been made by this Court in determining the petition. The case shall be decided on its own merit”, court concluded.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel