Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Jan 30: Observing that more responsibility lies on the persons holding high offices like that of a judge to remain above board in their public as well as private life, High Court has rejected the plea of a Judicial Officer seeking bail in cheating and rape charges.
The petitioner Rajesh Kumar Abrol being a Judicial Officer had sought regular bail in FIR for offences under Sections 376(rape) and 420 (Cheating) of Ranbir Penal Code arisen out of a report lodged by the victim on January 2018.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after having regard to the nature of the statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly the statement of the victim, said the court is unable to record an opinion that the case of prosecution against the accused-petitioner is frivolous.
Court after perusal of record of trial court said, prima facie there is material which connects the accused Judicial Officer to the alleged crime of rape and there can be no dispute to the fact that the rape is a heinous crime which entails punishment up to life imprisonment.
The rape, court added, not only destroys the victim physically but it shatters her mentally as well so a lenient view in such like matter is out of question. “The fact that the petitioner-accused is a Judicial Officer, a person in the position of authority and victim happens to be a person from the lowest strata of the society, makes the crime more serious”, Justice Dhar recorded.
Court said the position of accused vis-à-vis the victim is an important factor while considering a bail application. “Higher the status of a person, greater is the standard of conduct expected by the society from him”, court recorded.
It is further added by the court that more responsibility lies on the persons holding high officer like that of a judge to remain above board in their public as well as private life. A judgment or order of a court of law deserves its authority and respect not only from the quality it possesses but also from the integrity and rectitude of its author.
Justice Dhar said once a judge falls off from ethical and moral standards, his judgments and orders are viewed with suspicion. Therefore, when a Judicial Officer is implicated in an offence of rape, which does not involve moral turpitude then the court cannot treat it as any other routine case of rape.
Court said, such kind of case has to be dealt with one different footing with more severity and all seriousness. Court as such turned down the arguments of counsel for the accused that the petitioner-accused is being given unduly harsh treatment despite he is suffering from a life consuming disease of cancer and not getting proper treatment while in jail.
Court, however, having regard to the fact that the accused is in custody for the last over three years as such directed the trial judge to take resort to physical hearing of this particular case and conclude and decide the case within a period of two months from the date, copy of the order is made available to it.
Court while granting bail to the petitioner said, that recording of most of the prosecution witnesses including victim does not give him a vested right to grant bail, particularly in a case of rape.
“In case of such like nature, bail can be granted only if, prima facie it is shown from the evidence led by the prosecution that the allegations against the accused are false and the present case is not of such a nature”, Justice Dhar added.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
