Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Wednesday dismissed the bail application of a 59-year-old Kupwara resident accused in a rape and criminal intimidation case, observing that the gravity of the allegations and the existence of a prima facie case weighed heavily against granting him relief.
Justice M A Chowdhary passed the judgment while hearing a plea filed by Farooq Ahmad Dar of Sogam, Lolab, who is facing trial in connection with FIR No. 17/2022 registered at Police Station Women Wing, Kupwara, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused had sought release on bail, contending that he had been falsely implicated due to longstanding family disputes arising out of his marriage with the mother of the prosecutrix.
His counsel argued that the complainant had at one stage approached the court seeking quashing of the FIR, a circumstance which, according to the defence, cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
The defence further submitted that the accused had been in custody since June 13, 2022, had no criminal antecedents, was a government employee with deep roots in society, and posed no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
It was also argued that contradictions had surfaced in the prosecutrix’s statements during the trial and that medical evidence did not support allegations of forcible sexual assault.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution maintained that the accusations were grave in nature and that the prosecutrix had consistently supported the allegations both in the FIR and in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
It further asserted that medical evidence collected during investigation strengthened the prosecution’s case and that releasing the accused could adversely affect the fairness of the trial.
After examining the record, the High Court observed that the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution version and that questions relating to alleged contradictions in her testimony could only be determined during the course of trial.
The court noted that offences under Section 376 IPC are not merely crimes against an individual but offences against society at large, requiring courts to exercise caution while considering bail.
The court also rejected the argument that a subsequent compromise or efforts to seek quashing of the FIR could dilute the seriousness of the allegations. It held that any such developments would have to be assessed during the trial and could not serve as grounds for granting bail in a case involving allegations of repeated sexual assault and criminal intimidation.
Finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case and that concerns regarding possible influence on witnesses could not be ignored, the court declined to enlarge the accused on bail.
In a connected matter, the High Court also dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a trial court order that had refused permission to summon additional defence witnesses.
The court held that the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction and that allowing further evidence at such an advanced stage could unnecessarily prolong the proceedings.
The High Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law and make efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously.
