news details |
|
|
| Akhnoor sex scam accused denied bail | | | Jammu, July 5; High court judge Tashi Rabstan today denied bail to an alleged accused in the Akhnoor sex scam, while observing that since the trial in the case was at its infancy, it would be improper and premature to admit him to bail at this stage.
"In case the concession of bail is extended to the petitioner at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may threaten or win over the prosecution witnesses, thereby thwarting the course of justice," he said.
As the trial court had already rejected the bail application of Rahul, alleged accused in the sex scandal, he filed a revision petition in the court. Dismissing the revision petition, Justice Rabstan observed that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, there should be sufficient reasons to indicate in the order for prima facie concluding as to why the bail should be granted when the accused was charged with serious offences. "The purpose of refusing to grant bail is to ensure presence of accused during the trial and to further ensure free and fair trial which may be vitiated by intimidation of witnesses by the accused if he is set at large during the course of trial. The underlying principle is to ensure that the accused faces trial which is free and fair and in view of the recent incidents of crime against women, particularly, an incident of rape of minor, the courts have already sounded that precaution is to be taken while considering the bail pleas of the offenders of such heinous crime. It has been impressed upon the judicial officers and sessions judges dealing with such cases to take care and caution in exercising discretion to consider the release or otherwise of the accused on bail pending investigation and trial lest the discretion so exercised affects adversely the societal interests, investigation and fair trial," he said.
Justice Rabstan observed that from the perusal of the trial court order, it was abundantly clear that keeping in view nature and seriousness of allegations made against the accused coupled with the fact that charges under section 376 of RPC had been framed against him, the sessions judge had exercised his discretion which was well founded and in consonance with the legal parameters laid down in dealing with such matters. Otherwise also, grant of bail being interlocutory order was not subject to revisional jurisdiction. However, under exceptional circumstances and rarest of rare cases, this court may interfere in such discretion exercised by trial court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of CrPC. "Needless to say that prior to applying for bail before this court, the accused had absconded from the process of law and repeated the same conduct when his bail plea was rejected by the trial court after framing of charge. A person who has no respect for law and deliberately absconds from the process of law is otherwise disentitled to the exercise of discretion for grant of bail in his favour and in the instant case, the allegation levelled against petitioner is of rape committed on the prosecutrix, who belongs to a socially underprivileged class and the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage before recording the prosecution witnesses, who have never cooperated with the investigating agency will definitely influence the prosecution witnesses, prejudicial to the prosecution case, he added.
"With these observations, the court is of the considered view that severity and degree of punishment would be at higher side if the allegation levelled against the petitioner is proved to be true. Since the trial in this case is at its infancy, therefore, in my view, it would be improper and premature to admit him to bail at this stage. In case concession of bail is extended to him at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may threaten or win over the prosecution witnesses, thwarting the course of justice," Justice Rabstan said. He said keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had a right of speedy trial, the trial court was expected to conduct the trial of this case without any reasonable delay. He directed the prosecution agency to ensure the presence of witnesses on each and every date of hearing before the trial court. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
