MOHAMMAD SHAFI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11.07.2017, at about 8:00 am a girl child aged approximately nine years is alleged to have been exploited sexually by the accused/petitioner herein this petition, in a brick kiln situated at Patlibagh, Budgam. The accused/petitioner is said to have indulged in this gruesome and a horrifying crime at a time when this hapless child was playing. The complainant, Habibullah, father of the girl child reported this occurrence to the Police authorities of Police Station Budgam, by the medium of a written report which swung the police authorities into action and a case for offences under section 376, 363 RPC bearing FIR No. 166/2017, was registered against the petitioner, as a consequence of which the investigation commenced. During the course of the investigation of the case, the police authorities came to the conclusion that the girl child/prosecutrix was kidnapped and raped by the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. by a local Magistrate. On the conclusion of the investigation of the case the police authorities laid a charge-sheet against the accused before the committal Court which ultimately landed into the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Budgam. On 18.09.2017, the petitioner filed an application for the grant of bail in his favour before the Ld. Court of Sessions Judge, Budgam which came to be rejected by an order dated 23.11.2017 of the said court.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2017 of the Court of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Budgam, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court by filing a subsequent application for the grant of bail in his favour on the grounds, inter-alia, that the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not vouch for the commission of rape. No mark of violence has been found on any part of the body of the prosecutrix. A false and frivolous case has been lodged against the petitioner under the heat of vengeance and anger. The statements of the material witnesses have been recorded in the case. The father of the prosecutrix, i.e. the complainant has filed a petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C. before this Court wherein he has urged that proceedings initiated against the accused be quashed on the ground that there is no truth or substance in the FIR. The parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. The prosecutrix has not stated anywhere that she has been subjected to rape and that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from the justice, in case he is admitted to bail.

(3.) The state has failed to file the objections in answer to the instant application, although a number of opportunities have been provided to the Ld. Counsel representing the state. The lackadaisical, inattentive, incurious and indolent attitude of the state in this case which sends shivers down the spine of a man projects a tale of woes. A battery of lawyers has been engaged by the state to conduct and handle the matters in which the state is a party, but one gets dismayed to see that even in cases involving horrifying and serious crimes the approach of the state is abject, dismal and desolate.