news details |
|
|
| Court denies bail in rape case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 23: A Fast Track Court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of an Army personnel accused in an alleged rape case, ruling that the complainant's subsequent change of version cannot automatically wipe out her earlier statement recorded before a Magistrate.
Presiding Officer Amarjeet Singh Langeh dismissed the bail plea of Jasvinder Singh, a resident of Kanara, Nowshera, who was arrested on July 1 in FIR No. 100/2026 registered at Police Station Janipur.
The accused had sought bail claiming that he and the complainant had been in a consensual relationship since 2024 and that she had voluntarily accompanied him on the night of the alleged incident. His counsel argued that the case was registered under pressure from her family after she returned home.
The prosecution, represented by APP Ajay Dogra, opposed the application, contending that the complainant had initially given a clear account before the Magistrate alleging that the accused threatened her, took her to a secluded place and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse.
The Court noted that in her first statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on June 27, the complainant had categorically supported the prosecution allegations. Her version was also prima facie supported by the statements of her mother and brother, who allegedly noticed bloodstains on her clothes when she returned home after midnight.
However, in a second statement recorded on July 7, the complainant took a "U-turn" and claimed that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused and that the sexual relationship was consensual.
Refusing to discard the first statement, the Court observed that a statement recorded before a Judicial Magistrate cannot be brushed aside merely because the witness subsequently retracts or changes the version.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Vijaya Singh versus State of Uttarakhand, the Court said a higher burden rests upon a witness seeking to withdraw from a signed statement recorded before a Magistrate.
The Court also expressed serious concern over the manner in which the Investigating Officer facilitated the complainant's second statement without first determining why she wanted to change her earlier version.
"No Investigating Officer has unfettered discretion to invoke Section 183 of BNSS for the second examination of a witness without disclosing a particularised and objective basis," the Court observed.
It said a second statement may be recorded where fresh facts emerge, ambiguities require clarification or the earlier statement is shown to have been made under coercion or duress.
The Court remarked that an Investigating Officer must conduct the probe independently and dispassionately and must not "mysteriously shift focus at whims".
Noting that the investigation was still underway and the medical examination report of the complainant had not yet been obtained, the Court held that no ground for granting bail was made out at this stage.
Advocate Amit Sharma appeared for the accused, while APP Ajay Dogra represented the prosecution. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would not influence the trial on merits.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
