Jammu and Kashmir High Court Grants Bail To Gang Rape Accused, Emphasizes Presumption Of Innocence [Read Order]

NEW DELHI: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has recently granted bail to two men accused of gang-raping their brother's wife.

The court, while granting bail to the accused, observed a clear tendency on the part of the prosecutrix to improvise and make fresh allegations involving her in-laws in the heinous offenses in a bid to settle scores for her disturbed marital life. Further, the court noted that the manner in which the prosecutrix has improvised at every stage has brought the prosecution's case of gang rape against the petitioners into the realm of suspicion.

Equally important is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused shall be presumed innocent till proven guilty, and this aspect is important to be borne in mind by the Court while considering the bail application filed by a person accused of an offense, it said while granting bail.

FACTS:

The woman entered into matrimony in October 2020. One year later, she lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Jammu, alleging that her in-laws had subjected her to torture, abuse, and harassment since the day after her wedding due to insufficient dowry.

Initially, an FIR was registered under Sections 354/342, 498, 498-A, 504/506 of the IPC. Subsequently, offenses under Sections 376 and 376-D of IPC were added based on the woman's statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. She alleged that her husband's real brother and one cousin raped her twice.

ARGUMENTS:

The counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the story projected by the prosecutrix was solely to wreak vengeance against her in-laws for her failed marriage, and it was far from the truth and a sheer outcome of imagination and concoction.

Further, they argued that the first available version of the incident narrated in the written complaint made before the IGP, Jammu, does not, directly or indirectly, disclose the commission of an offense under Sections 376/376-D of IPC.

The counsel appearing for the state submitted that the charge against the petitioners was very heinous and, therefore, they did not deserve the concession of bail. He submitted that the jurisdictional court had already applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and had rightly declined to grant bail to the petitioners.

Additionally, the counsel for the prosecutrix argued that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire happenings and that the plea of contradiction between the FIR and the statement under Section 164 of CrPC cannot be taken to mean that the charge against the petitioners is frivolous and unsustainable.

DECISION:

The court, after hearing both parties, held that the dispute was purely and simply a matrimonial dispute and that the prosecutrix had made reckless allegations only intending to settle scores with her husband and his relatives.

Additionally, the court relied upon Satinder Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, wherein the Honble Supreme Court stated that it is a trite principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

In conclusion, the court, while granting bail, also held that the materials on record do not indicate any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners have committed the offense of gang rape, and that the manner in which the prosecutrix has improvised at every stage has also brought the case of gang rape against the petitioners into the realm of suspicion.  
 

[Read Order]