U-turn by victim before court no ground to grant bail: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 27

In a judgment liable to change the way bail pleas of accused in rape cases are decided, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a U-turn by the victim before the trial court was not a ground to grant relief. "The argument that the prosecutrix has not supported the allegations in deposition before the court is not enough to grant bail," the High Court has ruled.

Rape cases

The argument that the prosecutrix has not supported the allegations in deposition before the court is not enough to grant bail Punjab and Haryana High Court

The ruling by Justice Avneesh Jhingan came in a case where the prosecutrix had alleged that her father-in-law committed "wrong act", made videos and clicked photographs after giving some tablets which made her unconscious. The prosecutrix had also alleged blackmailing on the pretext that the photographs and videos would be made viral.

The allegations were reiterated by the victim while making statement under Section 164 of the CrPC before a Judicial Magistrate. But she did not support the allegations in her deposition before the court.

The FIR in the matter was registered in December last year for rape, criminal intimidation and another offence under Sections 328, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at the Sector 40 police station in Gurugram.

Taking up the matter, Justice Jhingan also gave the police the liberty to look into her backtracking. "Before parting, it would not be out of place to note that the nature of allegations made by the prosecutrix, especially the fact that the objectionable video and photographs were clicked, were very serious. Now there appears to be a U-turn. It would be for the police authorities, if so advised, to look into the said aspect in view of the material available before it," Justice Jhingan added.

In his detailed order, Justice Jhingan noted the dismissal of the bail application, filed before the trial Court by the petitioner, was challenged by him petitioner before the High Court. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated March 5 after an application seeking permission for the same was moved. On the same day, the petitioner filed another bail application before the trial court, but it was also dismissed on March 8, following which he moved the High Court again.

Noticing a mechanism for withdrawal adopted by the petitioner, Justice Jhingan added that instead of arguing the matter on the date fixed and bringing to the High Court's notice the alleged change in the circumstances, the earlier bail application was simply withdrawn. On the same day, the application was moved before the trial court.

from The Tribune https://ift.tt/3cqRJBM