news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses petition, declines to grant bail | | |
JAMMU, APRIL 26
Justice YP Nargotra of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, today dismissed the revision petition filed by accused Chur Singh and others facing trial in a rape case on gun point, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban on January 20, 2007 rejected the bail petition of the accused.
According to the prosecution story the petitioners are facing trial u/s 376/450/149 r/w section 109 RPC on the allegation that on the intervening night of 30-31 October, 2006 they having common criminal intention entered into the house of prosecutrix at Village Bilnot, Tehsil Ramban, accused Shadi Lal and Bharat Singh were armed with rifle. They pointed the rifle towards the prosecutrix and at the gunpoint accused Chur Singh committed forcibly rape upon her. On hue and cry of prosecutrix, some people rushed towards the spot and on seeing them, the accused fled away from the spot. The police on the complaint of prosecutrix, after the medical opinion, registered a case and started investigation. After completion of the investigation presented challan. The accused applied for the bail which was rejected by the Trial Court thereafter they have filed this criminal revision in the State High court.
Justice Nargotra, after hearing Advocate OP Thakur appearing for appellants and AAG BS Salathia appearing for the police, observed that in the considered opinion of the Court that the accused are not entitled to grant of bail as per the case of the prosecution. The prosecutrix and accused are neighbors and belonging to the same ‘biradari’ and are having enmity with each-other and because of this enmity, the accused yielding strong influence in the Biradari, ousted the complainants ousted from the biradari 3-4 years ago and were not permitted to participate in any of the social functions of the biradari. It is also the case of prosecution that because of the enmity when the husband of the prosecutrix was not at his house they forcibly entered into her house and at the gun-point committed the offence of rape. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC has implicated them. The medical evidence corroborates her version so there is a strong prima-facie case in support of the charge.
Justice Nargotra further observed that nature of offence is very heinous and the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed makes it grievous. The discrepancies in the prosecution case pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner are minor in nature which can be explained by the prosecution witnesses in their examination during the trial. At this stage, on the basis of these minor discrepancies, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution is fabricated one. In the circumstances of the case court do not find the accused entitled to bail and the order of the court below, whereby the bail has been declined, does not call for any interference. The revision petition is dismissed, however, with the observations that nothing said herein shall be construed by the Trial Court as an expression of opinion on merits on any of the issue involved in this case, court said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
