Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 16: The principal sessions judge, Kathua, has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of four rape accused.
The accused included Ashfaq Ahmed, son of Gulshan Ahmed of Chandyar, Ghulam Nabi, son of Ghulam Mohammad of Bani, Shamsh Din, son of Mangta of Chandyar, and Gulshan Ahmed, son of Mohammad Ramzan of Chandyar.
The complaint against them was lodged by Parvez Alam, son of Abdul Hamid on July 25, 2016, alleging therein that his sister had on July 18, 2016 left home to attend her duties at Malhar Dispensary and did not come back home in the evening. He alleged that he later came to know she had been kidnapped by Ashfaq Ahmed, Shakeel Ahmed, Shamas Din, Gulshan, Ghulam Nabi and Mohammad Irfan.
Acting on his complaint, police registered a case. During investigation, police recovered the girl from Baccon, Bani, on July 28, 2016. Her statement was then got recorded under section 164-A of CrPC on July 30, 2016 at Kathua. She, in her statement, disclosed that she was on her way to Sub-Center, Malhar, on July 18 when Shah Nawaz, Ashfaq, Ghulam Nabi and Shamas Din intercepted her and then snatched her purse. They took out keys, her election card and Rs 7,000 from the purse and asked her to accompany them. When she refused, Shah Nawaz took out a knife and threatened her. Thereafter they took her forcibly and proceeded through jungle, she alleged. Nobody came to her rescue. She was taken to a jungle, where father of Shah Nawaz came. She fell unconscious there. On the next day, she regained consciousness and she was taken to the court at Bani, where she was under threat forced to marry Shah Nawaz. The accused also prepared one nikahnama on which her signatures were obtained.
After medical examination of the accused and the girl, offences punishable under sections 376, 366, 382 and 109 of RPC were established against Shah Nawaz, whereas offences under sections 366, 382 and 109 of RPC were established against Ashfaq, Ghulam Nabi, Shamas and Gulshan Ahmed. Shah Nawaz was arrested on July 28, but rest of the accused were absconding.
Principal sessions judge Vinod Chatterji Koul, after hearing both the sides, observed that the severity of the crime alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, the supporting evidence and all other connected facts, 'do justify an inference that petitioners may misuse the concession of bail to escape the dragnet of law and once that possibility is not ruled out, the concession of bail cannot be extended. There are so many aggravating circumstances, which disentitle the petitioners from claiming the concession of bail'.
With these observations, he rejected the bail applications. (JNF) |
