The bail will initially be in effect till the submission of final report before the trial court. (Representational)IT WOULD be a travesty of justice to send a rape accused behind bars as the complainant was in a continuous relationship prior to registration of the case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed, while granting bail to a Ropar resident, booked by Chandigarh Police in April 2018. The bail will initially be in effect till the submission of final report before the trial court.
A 20-year-old woman, in the complaint with Sector 34 police, had said that the 25-year-old accused had developed “physical relations” with her about five years back — when she was 15-year-old — and promised to marry her, but married another person.
The police had registered a case on April 6 under sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 420 (cheating) of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The accused had approached the trial court in April for anticipatory bail, but was declined the relief, saying there are specific allegations of rape against him. He was granted interim anticipatory bail by the High Court on May 24 and asked to join the investigation.
While extending the interim bail to the accused till submission of challan and further ordering that he will be permitted “to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court” after that, Justice Fateh Deep Singh in a stark observation has said, “Culpability, if any, shall be determined at the trial and it would be a travesty of justice to send the petitioner behind bars in the present case.”
The counsel representing the accused had argued that the FIR has been lodged five years after the alleged occurrence of rape and there is no medical evidence to prove it. The Union Territory Police had argued the victim was a minor at the time of crime and bail should not be extended to the accused given the heinousness of crime.
Justice Singh further noted that there is an “inordinate delay” of five years between the alleged occurrence and registration of case. There is also state’s own stand that there exists no medical evidence to support the allegations of the complainant and that she was in a continuous relationship prior to registration of the case, the court has noted in the order.
The accused, in his defence before the trial court, had argued that that the complainant was in a “one-sided love” with him and wanted to marry him. They were not in contact for the past one year as the family of the woman had refused the proposal of their marriage, he had argued.
