Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has cancelled the bail granted to a rape accused man from Sumbal, Bandipora, holding that the trial court had relied on irrelevant considerations and undertaken an impermissible assessment of evidence while granting relief.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while allowing a petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Sumbal, set aside an order dated June 27, 2024, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora, which had granted bail to accused Parvaiz Ahmed Ganie in connection with FIR No. 155/2022 registered under Sections 341, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on December 27, 2022, when the prosecutrix/female victim was carrying cow dung to her farmland. It was alleged that the accused followed her, tore her trouser and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. The complaint further stated that women working in nearby fields intervened and rescued the victim.
Following investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement was recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. Charges were framed by the trial court on April 11, 2023.
During the trial, statements of the prosecutrix and her father were recorded, while other witnesses cited in the charge-sheet were yet to be examined.
The trial court had granted bail to the accused on several grounds, including the absence of spermatozoa on the victim’s clothing, non-seizure of a lighter and muffler allegedly used during the crime, discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence and delay in lodging the complaint.
The court had also noted that the accused had spent more than 18 months in custody and that the trial was progressing slowly.
However, the High Court found these reasons legally unsustainable.
Justice Dhar observed that the trial court had undertaken a detailed examination of the evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of deciding a bail application.
The judge further held that the non-seizure of certain articles or the absence of spermatozoa on the victim’s clothing could not by themselves discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix if her statement was otherwise reliable.
He also observed that minor inconsistencies regarding the place or date of occurrence, particularly when the victim is an illiterate woman, could not be treated as grounds to reject her version at the bail stage.
The Bench also noted that there was no allegation of prior enmity between the parties and that eyewitnesses who allegedly rescued the victim had yet to testify. Therefore, the trial court could not have formed a prima facie opinion questioning the accused’s involvement in the offence.
Emphasising the seriousness of the allegations, Justice Dhar said the offence carried a maximum punishment of life imprisonment and involved a crime against a woman. He remarked that granting bail at the initial stage of such trials could have a chilling effect on women’s sense of safety and that the trial court had failed to consider the broader societal impact of its decision.
Allowing the UT petition, the High Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within one month. It further instructed the trial court to expedite the examination of remaining eyewitnesses and warned that coercive measures should be initiated if the accused fails to surrender within the stipulated period.
