Surat: Three goats and Rs 75,000 cash!. Family of a 19-year-old man, accused of minor girl’s rape, merrily assumed that this ‘largesse’ would be enough to secure bail for him. But the accused drew the court’s ire who dubbed him as a repeat offender for this compensation offer to the survivor.
The fast-track special court (Surat) turned down the bail plea of the accused, who was arrested for raping a 15-year-old, in October. He was booked under sections of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) on October 17.
Last year, families of the man and the girl had decided to get them married after they attained the legal age as they had an affair. However, he entered into physical relationship with the girl who is now pregnant for a month-and-a-half. A year ago, a bitter dispute arose between the two families over their physical relationship and his family gave her parents three goats and Rs 75,000 as part of a compromise struck.
His lawyer cited this compromise while arguing for the bail. However, the court observed, “The compromise was reached between the families of accused and victim and the accused family had given three goats and Rs 75,000 to victim’s family as part of this truce. This itself shows that the accused is habituated to such crimes which he has committed more than once. It proves that he had abducted the girl from her native village to Surat and had repeatedly had physical relations with her.”
The accused was working as a casual labourer in Surat. He has been lodged Surat’s Lajpore jail since his arrest.
Opposing the bail plea, additional public prosecutor AP Vasoya said that despite knowing that the girl was minor, the accused lured the victim and raped and impregnated her. Also, the chargesheet has also been filed against him. He is a resident of another state and if given bail, he may escape justice, Vasoya argued.
“Considering the affidavit filed by the girl’s mother, the accused had also threatened the family through the village sarpanch, and therefore if given bail, he might again threaten the victim, tamper with evidence or repeat the offence. He may also not appear during the trial,” the court observed.