Absence Of Sperm On Seized Pants Does Not Make Rape Victim's Statement Unreliable: J&K&L High Court Cancels Bail

The Court further observed that at the stage of considering a bail application, a trial court cannot undertake a meticulous analysis of evidence or discard the prosecutrix's version on the basis of minor discrepancies.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora, whereby the respondent-accused was enlarged on bail in a case arising out of FIR registered for offences under Sections 341, 376 and 506 IPC.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while observing that “the learned trial court has clearly premised its order on the material, which is irrelevant,” held that “the severity of the offence becomes all the more grave because offence for which the accused is facing trial is an offence against women and granting bail in such cases at the very inception of the trial has a chilling effect on safety of women.”

The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station, Sumbal, alleging that the respondent-accused had committed rape upon her. During investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined, and her trouser was seized and sent to FSL for chemical examination, but no spermatozoa was detected.

The Age Determination Test of the prosecutrix revealed that she was major. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused was arrested. After investigation, a challan was laid before the trial court on 13.02.2023, and charges under Sections 341, 376 and 506 IPC were framed.

During trial, the statements of the prosecutrix and her father were recorded. Out of twelve prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, no other witness had been examined when the trial court granted bail to the accused.

The trial court granted bail by relying upon several circumstances including the absence of spermatozoa on the prosecutrix's trouser, non-seizure of the lighter allegedly used by the accused to threaten her, non-seizure of the muffler allegedly used to gag her mouth, discrepancies relating to the place of occurrence and delay in lodging the FIR.

The trial court also noted that the accused had remained in custody for more than eighteen months while only two prosecution witnesses had been examined. Aggrieved, the State appealed before the High Court.

Court's Observation:

The High Court first examined the legal position regarding cancellation of bail. Relying upon Imran v. Mohammad Bhava, (2022) 13 SCC 70, and Phireram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 15 SCC 2011, the Court noted that bail can be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower court, or if the order granting bail is illegal, perverse, or based on irrelevant material.

Applying this legal position, the Court scrutinized the impugned order. It observed that the trial court had taken note of circumstances including non-seizure of lighter and muffler, absence of spermatozoa on the seized trouser, discrepancy in the place of occurrence, and delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held,

“... I am afraid the aforesaid circumstances noted by the learned trial court for doubting the veracity of the statement of the prosecutrix are wholly irrelevant. If the statement of the prosecutrix otherwise is reliable and she has withstood the rigors of cross examination, merely because lighter and the muffler used by the accused in the commission of crime have not been seized would not discredit the statement of the prosecutrix.”

The Court further held,

“.. Similarly, merely because the trouser of the prosecutrix did not contain spermatozoa would not belie her statement in the face of her specific stand that the accused did not ejaculate. Thus, the learned trial court has clearly premised its order on the material, which is irrelevant.”

The Court also noted that the trial court had fallen into grave error by undertaking a meticulous and detailed analysis of the prosecutrix's evidence for arriving at a prima facie conclusion that her statement was unreliable. It observed,

“... A cursory look at the statement of the prosecutrix would reveal that there was no previous enmity between the parties that would have prompted her to falsely implicate the respondent. Not only this, there are other eye witnesses to the occurrence in the shape of the persons, who were present on spot and who saved the prosecutrix from the clutches of the accused. Their statements are yet to be recorded. Therefore, at this stage it was not open to the learned trial court to record a prima facie opinion that the respondent is not involved in the alleged crime.”

Addressing the ground of incarceration for 18 months, the Court held that this was not strong enough to enlarge the accused on bail because the charge was framed only on 11.04.2023 and within one year the prosecution had examined two material witnesses. The Court observed,

“... In a case of rape, the prosecutrix and her father are the star witnesses and their statements have already been recorded. After recording their statements, the trial court could not have returned a finding that the trial will take time to conclude.”

The Court then emphasized the societal impact and remarked,

“... In addition to the above, the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent is serious in nature carrying maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The severity of the offence becomes all the more grave because offence for which the accused is facing trial is an offence against women and granting bail in such cases at the very inception of the trial has a chilling effect on safety of women. The learned trial court, while granting bail to the respondent, has not considered the societal impact at all.”

The Court thus concluded that the impugned order was illegal and perverse as it was based on material that was not relevant, and that this was a fit case for interference.

Accordingly the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent. The respondent was directed to surrender before the trial court within one month from the date of the order, failing which coercive process was to be issued for securing his presence.

Case Title: Union Territory of J&K v. Parvaiz Ahmed Ganie

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment