Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 13: The Special Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases), Jammu, has rejected the bail application of Jaswinder Singh, an Army jawan posted in 04 Sikh LI Unit, Sunjwan, in a case registered under Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Channi Himmat. The order was passed by Special Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh.
According to the prosecution case recorded by the court, both the accused and the complainant were serving in the Army and were residing in their respective quarters at Trivani Vihar, Sunjwan Military Station. It was alleged that on September 14, 2024, when the victim’s mother had fainted and was taken to hospital, the accused went to the victim’s quarter on the pretext of collecting a health card and thereafter allegedly took the minor girl to his own quarter, where he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.
The matter was later reported to police, leading to registration of FIR No. 114/2024 on September 17, 2024.
The accused sought bail on the grounds of false implication, alleged delay in registration of the FIR and the plea that the medical and forensic evidence did not support the prosecution case. It was also argued that since the challan had already been filed and trial was in progress, he deserved to be enlarged on bail.
The bail plea was argued by Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi along with Advocate Vishal Mahajan for the petitioner. The Union Territory was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Gupta, while Advocate Z.N. Sheikh appeared for the complainant-victim.
While opposing the plea, the prosecution and counsel for the complainant-victim submitted that the accused was involved in grave and non-bailable offences and that the statements of the victim and her mother fully supported the prosecution case. The court noted that out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, nine had already been examined, including the victim, her father, her mother, three doctors, a scientific officer and the school principal concerned with proof of the victim’s date of birth.
After hearing all sides and examining the material on record, the court observed that the victim had vividly narrated the occurrence and that no major cracks had surfaced in her testimony at this stage so as to demolish the prosecution case. The court further observed that the testimonies of the complainant and the victim’s mother were also not so weak or feeble as to justify grant of bail at this stage, and that the discrepancies pointed out by the defence could not be examined in depth while deciding the bail application.
The court held that, considering the nature of the evidence led so far, the gravity of the accusations, the severity of punishment attached to the offences and the import of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, no case for grant of bail was made out. Dismissing the application, the court said the plea had no merit at this stage.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
