Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 21: The Special Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases), Jammu, has rejected the bail application of an accused facing trial in an alleged rape case involving a 15-year-old girl, holding that no case for grant of bail was made out at this stage.
The bail plea was filed by Jai Parkash in FIR No. 81/2023 registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, for offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution opposed the application, contending that the accused was involved in serious and heinous offences and that the statements of the victim and other material witnesses recorded before the court supported the prosecution case.
According to the order passed by Special Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh, the accused has been in custody since July 5, 2023. The court noted that the challan had already been presented and the case was at trial stage, with 18 out of 24 prosecution witnesses having been examined so far.
As per the prosecution case recorded in the order, the complaint was lodged by the victim's mother, who alleged that the girl later disclosed that the accused had sexually assaulted her months earlier. The investigation, the order notes, led to allegations that the accused repeatedly lured the minor to his room and subjected her to sexual assault, resulting in pregnancy. The court also recorded that the victim was subsequently permitted to terminate the pregnancy by order of the Child Welfare Committee, Jammu.
While declining bail, the court observed that the victim had given a detailed and vivid account of repeated sexual assault and that, prima facie, her testimony was corroborated by her mother, father and other prosecution witnesses already examined in the case. The court further noted that the DNA profiling report regarding paternity of the foetus was still awaited and described it as a crucial part of the prosecution case.
Holding that the evidence on record formed a visible chain against the accused, the court concluded that no ground for grant of bail was made out at this stage and dismissed the application. It, however, clarified that the observations made in the order were only for deciding the bail application and should not be treated as an expression on the final merits of the case. (JNF) |
