Srinagar: Underscoring that the trial court has relied on irrelevant considerations and undertook an impermissible detailed analysis of evidence at the bail stage, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh overturned a Bandipora court’s order granting bail to an accused facing trial in a rape case.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the government’s plea wherein the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora on June 27, 2024 granting bail to accused Parvaiz Ahmed Ganie was challenged. Ganai has been booked in an FIR (155/2022) registered at Sumbal Police Station under Sections 341, 376 and 506 of the IPC.
In the face of alleged rape allegations, the accused was arrested on December 29, 2022, and a chargesheet was subsequently filed in the competent court against him following an investigation. The trial court had granted bail to the accused after noting the factors such as non-seizure of a lighter and muffler allegedly used during the crime, absence of spermatozoa on the victim’s seized clothing, discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, delay in lodging the FIR, and the accused’s incarceration of over 18 months.
However, the High Court held that these considerations were not sufficient grounds for granting bail. “Non-seizure of certain articles or absence of spermatozoa on the victim’s clothing could not by themselves discredit the prosecutrix’s testimony if it was otherwise reliable”. A trial court, while deciding a bail application, cannot undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or assess witness credibility in detail, the bench said.
Moreover, the Court noted that the statements of other eyewitnesses cited by the prosecution were yet to be recorded and that there was no material suggesting any previous enmity that could indicate false implication of the accused. In response to the contention that prolonged incarceration justified bail, the bench held that charges had been framed in April 2023 and two key witnesses, including the prosecutrix(victim) and her father, had already been examined. A delay of a few months in the trial of a serious offence such as rape could not automatically be treated as a violation of the accused’s right to a speedy trial, the court said.
Furthermore, the court pointed out the gravity of offences against women, saying that granting bail at the initial stage of trial in such cases could have a chilling effect on women’s sense of safety.