Bengaluru (Aryavarth): In a significant development, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, sitting at Srinagar, has granted bail to the petitioner, Naseema Begum, in a case arising from FIR No.210/2020. The petitioner had sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) for offenses under Section 363, 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bail application was filed by Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner.
According to the prosecution's case, the victim, a minor girl, revealed during the investigation of another case (FIR No.202/2020) that she had been subjected to rape on multiple occasions by the main accused, Shabir Ahmad War, with the alleged aid of her mother, Naseema Begum. The police subsequently registered FIR No.210/2020 and initiated an investigation into the matter. During the trial, two accused persons were granted bail, while Shabir Ahmad War and Naseema Begum remained in custody.
The petitioner contended that her daughter, the victim, had falsely implicated her under duress during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the victim's subsequent trial testimony and the statements of other prosecution witnesses contradicted the allegations against her. The petitioner sought bail on these grounds.
The respondent, Union Territory of J&K, opposed the bail application, emphasizing the severity of the offense and the petitioner's alleged involvement in aiding and abetting the main accused in committing rape.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the case, considered the arguments presented by both sides and analyzed the applicable legal principles governing the grant or refusal of bail. The court summarized these principles, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused's position vis-à-vis the victim/witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the possibility of tampering with evidence or witnesses, the likelihood of repetition of the offense, and the prima facie satisfaction of the court regarding the charge.
Additionally, the court acknowledged the provisions of the POCSO Act, particularly Sections 29 and 30, which create a presumption of guilt and culpable mental state against an accused charged under the Act. However, the court emphasized that the presumption is rebuttable, and each case must be decided on its own merits.
Upon examining the facts of the case, the court noted that the victim had exonerated the petitioner during her trial testimony. The victim's brothers also provided statements that did not implicate the petitioner. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the petitioner had successfully rebutted the presumption of guilt and established a prima facie case for bail. The court also highlighted that the petitioner had already endured a significant period of incarceration, and most of the prosecution witnesses had been examined, minimizing the risk of witness tampering.
Accordingly, the court allowed the bail application and imposed certain conditions on the petitioner, including furnishing a personal bond, appearing before the trial court, staying within the territorial limits of the Union Territory of J&K, and refraining from tampering with prosecution witnesses.
The court clarified that its decision on the bail application was limited to the specific case at hand and should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
This ruling by the High Court marks a significant development in the ongoing case, highlighting the importance of evaluating individual circumstances and evidence in determining the grant of bail. It serves as a reminder of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings.
Get our Digital Edition at Rs 1100 per year. 51% used for Gau Seva, 49% used for our operations. Subscribe here - http://pages.razorpay.com/TAVEDE
