Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside the bail granted to an accused facing trial in a rape and criminal intimidation case involving allegations of false promise of marriage, recording of intimate videos and blackmail.
Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed a petition filed by the complainant/victim challenging the order dated August 3, 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Budgam. By the said order, the Trial Court had made absolute the interim bail earlier granted to the accused in FIR No. 272/2023 registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
The petitioner contended before the High Court that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the grave nature of the allegations and the material available on record. It was argued that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, supported by medical evidence and an independent witness, attracted serious consideration, but the Trial Court passed a cryptic and non-reasoned order while granting bail.
As per the prosecution case, the accused was a neighbour of the victim and allegedly followed her and attempted to establish contact. It was alleged that he falsely represented himself as a well-settled person employed in a reputed company and proposed marriage to the victim. Relying upon such representations, the victim developed trust and entered into a relationship with him.
The prosecution further alleged that during the relationship, the accused clandestinely recorded intimate acts without the victim’s knowledge or consent. When confronted, he allegedly claimed that the videos were “cherished memories” and assured that they would be deleted.
However, according to the prosecution, the victim later accessed the accused’s mobile phone and found several such videos, not only involving her but also other women, allegedly stored in his mobile phone and laptop. It was further alleged that the accused blackmailed the victim and demanded ₹10 lakh for deleting the videos.
The prosecution submitted that after the victim disclosed the incident to her parents, a complaint was lodged on September 23, 2023, leading to registration of the FIR. During investigation, a pen drive, mobile phone and laptop were recovered, and forensic examination allegedly revealed multiple recorded instances of sexual encounters involving the accused and different women. Two other victims were also cited as prosecution witnesses.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution case was false and fabricated, and that the relationship was consensual. It was submitted that the Trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion in granting bail and that the accused continued to enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that in serious and heinous offences, courts must consider the nature and gravity of accusations, the manner in which the alleged offence was committed, the role attributed to the accused, possibility of witness tampering, chances of absconding and the impact of bail on fair administration of justice.
The Court held that the Trial Court had failed to consider material aspects of the case, particularly the detailed statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC, allegations of inducement on false promise of marriage, and accusations of exploitation coupled with blackmail through electronic means.
Justice Parihar observed that the allegations disclosed a systematic pattern of conduct, as reflected from the recovery of electronic devices and forensic material allegedly indicating similar acts with other victims. The Court held that such crucial aspects went to the root of the matter and were not duly considered by the Trial Court.
The Court also rejected, at this stage, the argument that the relationship was consensual. It observed that consent cannot be examined in isolation where allegations prima facie disclose deception or misconception of fact. The plea of consensual relationship, the Court held, raised disputed questions which can only be adjudicated during trial.
The High Court further held that where an order granting bail is found to be cryptic, perverse or passed without proper consideration of relevant material, the same is liable to be interfered with by a superior court. It observed that release of an accused in a grave offence without due application of mind not only undermines the victim’s confidence but also shocks the conscience of the Court and has a harmful impact on society.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the bail order dated August 3, 2024, withdrew the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. The Court said that in case he fails to surrender, the Trial Court shall take appropriate coercive steps to secure his presence in accordance with law.
The Court, however, clarified that its observations are confined to the bail proceedings and shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the trial. It also granted liberty to the accused to renew his bail plea after material witnesses are examined. (JNF) |