New Delhi (ILNS): The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a rape accused on the ground that the girl had consented to the sexual intercourse. He was arrested on the account of raping a minor girl.
“Although, she could not have consented for sexual intercourse as well as leaving custody of her custodian but for deciding the bail, her conduct is sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner,” observed Justice Anoop Chitkara.
As per the prosecution’s case, the father of the victim, informed through a written complaint, the Police Station Theog, Shimla district, on November 1 regarding allurement of her daughter by the petitioner Rohit Sharma. He informed the police that his daughter, 16, was allured by the petitioner on October 29 at 3.30 pm. His daughter stayed with him up to October 31 and he also committed rape on her. However, on the evening of October 31 he dropped her back. Based on such information the police lodged an FIR.
During the investigation the victim informed the police that she knew the petitioner for the last three-four months and was in touch with him through Facebook as well as phone. She also informed that, two-three weeks ago, petitioner had visited her home and had taken her to Primary School Kandi where in the corridor they had indulged in coitus. She further informed the police that at 9 am on October 29 Rohit called her and told her to accompany him for two-three days. Upon this at 3.20 pm she left home and informed her cousin that she is going out with Rohit.
After walking for four-five kilometers, Rohit met her and then he took her over his bike to the house of his relative. The next day they participated in a marriage where the victim stayed with him where he indulged in sexual intercourse with her. On October 31 when the petitioner received phone call from his mother then he dropped her back.
The counsel for the petitioner contends that the family of the girl intentionally and deliberately forced her to lodge a false complaint to harass the petitioner and his family members.
Incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner, contended the counsel.
The court, while considering the fact that the victim had informed the police that she knew the accused for the last three-four months and was in touch with him through Facebook as well as phone and on October 30 they participated in a marriage where the victim stayed with him where he indulged in sexual intercourse with her, observed:
“The conduct of the victim clearly points out that she had initially gone with the petitioner up to Primary School and after having coitus with him did not reveal the fact to anyone and despite that after two-three weeks of her own voluntarily accompanied him. Although, she could not have consented for sexual intercourse as well as leaving custody of her custodian but for deciding the bail, her conduct is sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner,” said the order.
The court also emphasized that the entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose. Usual conditions were also imposed while granting bail.
Read the judgment here;Rohit-Sharma-V-State-of-Himachal-Pradesh