Court Reject Bail To Rape Accused

Says Victim Is Forced To Live In Indignation Throughout Her Life

Srinagar, Mar 5 : A court in Srinagar on Saturday rejected bail to a man accused of raping a 21-year-old young woman last year.

As per the prosecution on 8 May last year, a man lodged a written report with police station Shergari Srinagar that his daughter 21-year-old was abducted by the accused identified as Suhail Ahmad Sofi from Iqbal complex, Srinagar where she had gone for treatment. Subsequently a case (FIR No.41/2021) for offences punishable under IPC Sections of 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman), 342 (wrongful confinement) and investigation ensued, the prosecution said.

“During investigation the prosecutrix was recovered from Alochibagh from a rented house who was kept confined there by the accused,” prosecution said. Later 376 (rape) of Indian Penal Code was added to the FIR.

“The accused had taken Rs.50,000 from the prosecutrix and when she demanded the said amount back, the accused refused and threatened her that he will sprinkle acid upon her and under this threat raped her,” the prosecution said as per the statement made by the women.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused said that the accusations made against his client are fabricated, frolicsome, vexatious and lack in the material substance as he has nothing to do with the alleged offences.

After hearing both the sides, the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar Mohammad Ashraf Bhat rejected the bail plea, observing that offence of rape was crime against the entire society.

“Rape is a heinous crime which cannot be viewed with a leniency. Rape victim is left with a feeling of degradation, humiliation and guilt for the rest of her life,” the court said, underling that the society cannot look upon a woman with derision, depravity, contempt and as an object of desire.

“She is forced to live in indignation throughout her life,” the court said, adding, “The narrative of violence against women in India continues unhindered.”

Sexual violence apart from being a de-humanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female, the court said.

“It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity, it degrades and humiliates the victim, it leaves behind a traumatic experience,” the court said, adding, “A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity.”

Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society, the court reiterated. “It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished fundamental right, namely, the right to life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said, adding, “The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.”

The court said law was well settled that in non bailable offences bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

“Thus, on an overall view of the case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of prosecutrix recorded before this court, as also the gravity of offence coupled with other circumstances attending the matter and possibility of hampering and tampering with the prosecution evidence by the accused cannot be ruled out,” the court said as per Global News Service, adding, “Therefore at this stage, in view of what has been stated here in above, case for grant of bail is not made out in favour of the petitioner/accused. Resultantly, application for bail merits rejection and is accordingly rejected.” (GNS)