On Friday, the Apex Court refused the petition of a woman seeking cancellation of bail of a person accused by her of raping her saying it appears to be a case of "consensual relationship" in which she went to hotels with him & spent salary sent by her husband posted at the border with a central security force personnel.
A bench of Justice DY Chandrachud & Justice Surya Kant did not interfere with the Rajasthan HC order granting bail to the accused.
Justice Kant said that “You (woman) left your children back at home & went with him (accused) to hotels. You took a separate room on rent to live with the accused in a nearby town. This is how you were spending money of your husband, who is an ITBP personnel. That poor fellow posted at the borders did not even know what his wife was doing back home".
Justice Chandrachud said that "it appears from the charge sheet that it was a case of consensual relationship" & therefore it would not interfere with the High Court order of Dec 2, 2021. Lawyer Aditya Jain, appearing for the woman, submitted that the accused harassed the victim & committed rape with her several times, & even blackmailed her for money.
He relied upon certain bank transactions to prove the same & stated that the High Court did not note the submission of the complainant & merely granted bail to the accused saying that the charge sheet was filed in the case. According to the petition filed by the woman seeking cancellation of the bail, the accused was booked under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code & provisions of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The plea contended that the High Court has not assigned any reasons while enlarging the accused on bail while it is a settled law that there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where an accused was charged with having committed a serious offence.
The petition said that “The High Court while granting bail has ignored the relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused respondent in the offences he is charged with. Such an order is legally infirm & vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice to the Petitioner".
It added that the victim in the FIR has alleged that the accused
& his sister-in-law & her husband assisted in her rape,
blackmailing, & extortion of money over a period of time.
The woman claimed that she lives with her two sons in a village in
Rajasthan while her husband was posted with Indo Tibetan Border Police
(ITBP) Force posted in Jammu.
The plea alleged that the sister-in-law of the accused, who lived in the same village, invited the complainant to her home wherein the accused was also present & offered her intoxicated tea & she lost consciousness.
“As she regained consciousness, she realized that the accused had raped her & committed wrong acts which were also photographed & videographed. The petitioner was also threatened by the accused that her videos will be released on the internet if she informs the act of rape to anyone”, the plea said.
Source Link
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments