SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order dated 03.06.2017 the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jammu, rejected the application of the applicant/accused, namely, Sunil Kumar S/o Chaman Lal R/o Chanu Chak, Jammu, for admitting him to bail in offences under Sections 366/376 RPC, substantially on the grounds that Sec. 497-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a fetter that prevents the Court in enlarging a person accused of an offence of rape to bail and that the accused a despicable man treated the prosecutrix, a minor, in a reprehensible manner and abused her sexually. Thereafter, the applicant/accused moved the present application, wherein he has craved the indulgence of this Court in releasing him on bail for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) In order to have a better understanding of the matter and the context in which the trial Court followed the above reasoning it will be profitable to note that the applicant/accused was arrested on 112014 for seducing the prosecutrix, a girl of plus sixteen years of age, to sexual intercourse on 011.2014. On this accusation, a case was registered against the applicant/accused with which the investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation of the case, the statements of the witnesses, conversant with the facts of the case, as also the statement of the prosecutrix under Sec. 164-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and on the completion of the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet for the commission of the offences under Sec. 415, 376/363 RPC was laid against the accused/applicant in the competent Court of law. The learned trial Judge framed the charge against the accused/applicant on 30.01.2015 for the commission of the offences aforesaid. The accused/applicant denied the charge and accordingly, the prosecution was asked to produce evidence in support of its case.

(3.) The grouse of the petitioner is that the trial of the case has been going on at a snail's pace. The prosecution evidence has not been recorded in its entirety although a lot of water has flown down the Ganges since the date of framing the charge against him. The prosecutrix entered into a marriage agreement with him out of her own will and volition. The medical expert has opined that she is habitual of indulging in sexual intercourse. No marks of violence have been found on her body or on her private parts. The Investigating Officer has not conducted the ossification test of the prosecutrix in order to ascertain her exact age which has been put at plus sixteen years as per the school certificate. The learned trial Judge while considering the bail application of the accused/applicant has not /appreciated the evidence on record. This has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. He has not committed any offence. He has been involved in a false and frivolous case and as per the statement of the Gynecologist who examined the prosecutrix, the offence of rape is not made out against him. In the premises, the applicant has prayed that he be enlarged on bail.