In The Case Of Rahul Kumar Vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors.before The Honorable High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The petitioner seeks a regular bail in the light of section 439 of Cr.P.C in the FIR registered against him for the commission of offences punishable under section 377/506 IPC read with Sections 4/5(m) of POCSO Act.
• The petitioner is a young boy aged 21 who has been involved in the false and frivolous FIR which later culminated into production of challenging which is pending before the trial court.
• The allegations against the petitioner says that the victim who is a 11 year old child had gone to victim’s house for getting milk but the accused (petitioner herein) committed unnatural offence with the said child.
• It is to be mentioned that the trial court rejected the bail application of the petitioner via order dated 12.10.22.
• The statement of victim is not yet recorded before the trial court and the doctor who conducted the medical examination is also yet to be examined.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

• The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that trial court has not analysed the evidences while delivering the decision.
• It is argued that the trial court while rejecting the bail application has not the considered the medical report forming part of the charge sheet which clearly negates commission of unnatural offence by the victim.
• The counsel of the respondent opposed the bail. It was argued that petitioner cannot seek bail as a matter of right since he is involved in a cognizance and unnatural offence.
• It was contended by the counsel that releasing the  petitioner on bail would raise question on fair hearing of the case.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

• The court referred to the case of State of U.P vs Amarmani Tripathy, reported in 2005 in order to determine the essential factors to be taken in consideration in the present circumstances of the case.
• Court observed that the factors laid down in the above case for determining bail in non-bailable offences are not exhaustive but indeed serve as guidelines.
• Court rejected the bail application and observed that the petitioner has failed to hold a strong case for bail in the present case.
• Court held that any kind of leniency in matters of unnatural offences cannot be supported and the act of the petitioner in the present case is not worthy of sympathy.
• Court held that in the present case bail is not the right remedy.