Gujarat High Court Refuses To Cancel Anticipatory Bail Granted To Rape Accused 5 Yrs Ago

The Gujarat High Court has refused to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to a rape accused five years ago, stating that all this time the applicant-victim did not take a stand that seriousness of offence has not been considered by the Court below and that the accused has not misused his liberty nor violated any condition.The accused was booked for offences punishable under Sections 376, 366, 328, 395, 397, 344, 406, 420, 506(2) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The Bench comprising Justice Ashutosh Shastri opined that the trial had already begun and it would be improper to cancel anticipatory bail granted 5 years before, particularly, when no attempt was made by the Applicant to get the matter disposed of at the earliest who had approached the Court after a lapse of time. The facts of the case were that the victim aged 19 years old had gone to attend nature's call at night in 2017 but did not return. Subsequent to the search, it was found that Respondent No. 2 had abducted the victim for the purpose of marriage. It was also discovered that the Respondent Accused and other persons had forcefully taken the victim in a white car and administered threats against raising alarm. She was also made unconsciousness and upon waking, she realised that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. The Respondent also got signatures on certain papers and thereafter, she was shifted to Naroda and confined to a house. However, the victim had managed to escape custody, albeit without ornaments or her mobile phone. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition and an anticipatory bail application which was granted in September 2017 by the Sessions Judge which was challenged in the instant petition. The Applicant insisted that a serious offence under Sec 376 was committed which was not appreciated by the Sessions Judge while granting bail. It was also claimed that the impugned order was passed without much discussion and the reasons assigned by the Judge for granting bail were not 'germane to law.' However, the Applicant admitted that the trial had already commenced and left it to the discretion of the High Court to pass the necessary order. Per contra, Respondent 2 contested that the application could not be entertained at the given stage of trial. Further, Respondent had not violated any bail conditions. It was also averred that the victim was aged 19 years and there was not enough material on record to justify that force was administered. Justice Shastri primarily opined that bail was granted in 2017 and there were 'no special circumstances placed before the Court to set aside the same.' The Court also noted that the age of the victim was 19 years age at the time of the incident and there was a statement attributed to the victim that she had gone with the Respondent out of her own volition. Later, 'love marriage' was executed but since the Respondent was not earning and misbehaving with her, she chose not to reside with him. Reliance was placed on X vs State of Telangana and Anr to emphasise: "Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted." Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Case No: R/CR.MA/25080/2017 Case Title: RAJUBHAI KAMABHAI DESAI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 276Click Here To Read/Download Order

Gujarat High Court Refuses To Cancel Anticipatory Bail Granted To Rape Accused 5 Yrs Ago

PRIYANKA PREET

Tags