Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 8 : Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, Vinod Chatterji Koul has rejected the bail application of a rape accused.
Accused Shah Nawaz is alleged to have kidnapped and raped the victim. According to the police report, the matter was brought to the notice of police by the victim's brother Parvez Alam, son of Abdul Hamid, on July 25, 2016.
He alleged that his sister had left home to attend her duties at Malhar dispensary on July 18, 2016, but did not come back. Later, he came to know telephonically that she had been kidnapped. He made inquiries but could not find her.
Acting on his complaint, police registered a case in this regard. During investigation, police recovered the girl on July 28, 2016 from Baccon, Bani, in Kathua district and recorded her statement under section 164-A of CrPC on July 30 at Kathua.
In her statement, she disclosed that on July 18, 2016, she was on her way to attend her duties at sub-centre, Malhar, when Shah Nawaz, Ashfaq, Ghulam Nabi and Shamas Din appeared on the scene and snatched her purse. They took out keys, her election card, Rs 7,000 in cash from the purse and asked her to accompany them. When she refused, Shah Nawaz took out a knife and forced her to follow them through the nearby jungle. She stated that nobody came to her rescue. She was taken to the jungle, where Shah Nawaz's father also came. She fell unconscious there. On the next day, she regained consciousness and was taken to the Bani court, where, under threat, she was forced to marry Shah Nawaz and her signatures were also obtained. The accused also prepared a nikahnama on which her signatures were obtained.
She and the accused were also got medically examined. The accused has been booked under sections 376, 366, 382 and 109 of RPC.
After hearing both the sides, the court observed that while granting bail, the court had to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction would entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered and other similar considerations.
It had also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which meant that the court dealing with the grant of bail could only satisfy it as to whether there was a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution would be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge, the court said.
"It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the court observed.(JNF) |
