J&K High Court Denies Bail In Rape & Suicide Case, Cautions Against Granting Bail In Heinous Offences Immediately Post Framing Of Charges

Stressing that bail should not ordinarily be granted in heinous offences like rape or murder once the trial begins, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused bail to the accused in a case of rape and abetment to suicide. Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that courts should refrain from granting bail just after framing charges or before the victim is examined, especially in sensitive cases.Citing X vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.(2024) the court reiterated, “.. once trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. It has been further held that it is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the court may be justified in ordering release of the accused on bail”These observations came in a bail plea of one Sunil Kumar Sharma who was accused of offences under Sections 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), 201 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 67 of the IT Act.The victim, a college student, had disappeared on August 20, 2022, after leaving for college in Samba, Jammu. Her body was found the next day on a railway track in Punjab. Initial investigations by the Government Railway Police suggested suicide. However, the victim's father, seeking justice, pursued investigations under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).According to the victim's family, the petitioner, Sunil Kumar Sharma, had persistently harassed the girl. He allegedly coerced her into a relationship, clicked obscene photos, and threatened to make them public. This led to the victim's depression and, ultimately, her tragic death.After comprehensive investigations, including witness statements and phone data retrieval, the police concluded that the victim ended her life due to harassment and threats by the accused. Consequently, Sharma was charged under the aforementioned sections of IPC and IT Act. His earlier plea for bail was rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba. Seeking bail in the matter the petitioner argued that the evidence was insufficient to link the accused to the victim's death. He also questioned the father's delay in naming the petitioner and highlighted inconsistencies in the timeline of the allegations.The prosecution maintained that the accusations were severe, emphasizing that the trial had only recently commenced, with charges framed in November 2024. Noting that no prosecution witnesses had been examined yet, they argued that granting bail could compromise the trial's integrity.Justice Dhar began by analysing Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC, which govern bail provisions. He noted that while Section 437 imposes restrictions on granting bail in serious offences, Section 439 provides broader powers to higher courts. However, these powers are not unfettered and must be exercised judiciously, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes, the court stressed. The Court further observed that overriding considerations in bail matters include the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused's position relative to the victim and witnesses, the risk of flight, the likelihood of reoffending, and the possibility of witness tampering. In heinous cases like the present one, the Court emphasized that societal interest and the victim's dignity must take precedence over the accused's liberty.While scrutinising the available record Justice Dhar noted that the parents' statements provided a credible explanation for the delay in implicating the petitioner, as the father learned about the harassment only a month after the incident. Moreover, the recovered call data and photographs corroborated the victim's account of intimidation and harassment, he underlined. The court added, “It seems that father of the deceased wanted to be sure before pointing any finger at the petitioner and for this reason, he did not mention name of the accused in the application which he made to the police in September, 2022. But one thing is clear that he suspected foul play in the death of his daughter upon knowing the details from his wife and this prompted him to approach the police afresh”Highlighting that in cases involving heinous crimes, bail should only be considered if trials are unduly delayed without fault on the accused's part the court noted that the trial in this case had barely started, and emphasised that granting bail at this stage could jeopardize witness testimonies and public interest.“The charges against the petitioner have been framed by the trial court recently on 19.11.2024 and not even a single prosecution witness has been examined as yet. In these circumstances, enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage would not only be against the interests of the society but it would also expose the material witnesses of the prosecution to danger of being threatened by the petitioner as their statements are yet to be...

J&K High Court Denies Bail In Rape & Suicide Case, Cautions Against Granting Bail In Heinous Offences Immediately Post Framing Of Charges

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags