Srinagar, April 24: Rejecting the bail application of a rape accused from Budgam, the High Court today expressed its anguish at the casual approach of the government lawyers for tacitly avoiding to challenge the bail request of the accused alleged to have committed the crime on a nine-year-old child.
“A copy of this order (of rejection of the bail application) shall be sent to Chief Secretary of the State so that he can take a stock of how casual the state deals with the matters that are serious and sensitive,” directed a single bench of the High Court.
The court was hearing the bail application of one M Shafi Sheikh, alleged to have abducted and raped a nine-year-old girl on 11th of July 2017, at 8:00 am in a brick kiln at Patlibagh, Budgam.
The accused Shafi had moved a bail application in the High Court besides challenging an order by the sessions court which has already rejected his plea.
The High Court recorded “the state has failed to file the objections in answer to the instant application, although a number of opportunities have been provided to the counsel representing the state. The lackadaisical, inattentive, incurious and indolent attitude of the state in this case which sends shivers down the spine of a man projects a tale of woes.”
It lamented that a battery of lawyers has been engaged by the State to conduct and handle the matters in which the State is a party, but one gets dismayed to see that even in cases involving horrifying and serious crimes (like these) the approach of the State is abject, dismal and desolate.
The accused is said to have indulged in the horrifying crime at a time when the ill-fated child was playing.
Her father reported in writing the occurrence of the incident at Police Station Budgam leading to registration of a case for offences under sections 376, 363 RPC (abduction and rape).
During the course of the investigation of the case, the police came to the conclusion that the girl child was kidnapped and raped by the accused.
The statement of the child was also recorded by a local magistrate. A charge-sheet against the accused was then filed before the Sessions court.
Interestingly a compromise seems to have been arrived at between the father of the ill-fated child and the relatives of the accused as the father of the child filed a petition before the court.
He urged that proceedings initiated against the accused rapist be quashed on the ground that there is no truth or substance in the FIR. He brazenly stated to have arrived at an amicable settlement, reveals the High Court judgment.
Discarding the bail application of the accused, the High Court observed that “rape is a crime against one’s mind, psyche and reputation. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim and it becomes horrendous for the victim of rape to lead a dignified and well-respected life in the society. It is very unfortunate that there is a high increase in the rape instances and ravenous maniacs are not even sparing the girls of a very tender age.”
The High Court held that section 376 RPC (rape) is non-compoundable. It falls within the category of cases where the law does not permit it to be settled on the wishes of the parties.
“It is a wrong done against the state and the society. The up-shot of the above discussion is that, the application of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. It entails dismissal as a consequence of which the same is dismissed,” it observed.
