news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail plea of teacher for blackmailing | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 25: Sub-Judge Ramnagar RK Lalhal rejected the bail application of Sahil Gupta a Govt teacher who blackmail student.
As per police challan, complainant alleged that she had gone to higher secondary school ramnagar for her practical paper and accused called her to his house where he gave some superfying substance in juice resulting which she became unconscious Thereafter accused unclothes her and taken some nude photos of complainant Pertinent to mention that accused is the teacher in the same school where complainant is studying Thereafter accused started blackmailing her and forced her to get marry with him and when complainant refused to marry with him, accused uploaded her nude photos and videos on instagram account.
Sub-Judge Ramanagar RK Lalhal after hearing both the sides observed that No doubt it is settled law that courts while considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest and personal liberty while adhering to fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that accused is presumed to be innocent till his found guilty by the competent court. But at the same time society expects responsibility and accountability from the members and it desires that the citizen should obey the law respecting it as a cherished social norm. Therefore when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the court has a duty and can't abandon sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim caprice. It is also true that sanctity of the liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society and no one would lie and lore his liberty or barter it for the wealth of the world but liberty is not an absolute. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal orders. In view of the foregoing discussion, material available on record and law laid down Supra I am of the firm opinion that this is subsequent bail application and the changes which have occurred after the rejection of the earlier bail application are just charges are framed and examination in chief of the victim has been done which is not the substantial change and just cosmetic or peripheral as such no good ground is made to move this application and in case it is allowed it would amount to review of previous order which is not permissible under law. Application sans merit, dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
