- The Rajasthan HC has, in Rahul Katara vs State of Rajasthan granted bail to a Judicial Officer and two clerks who were accused of sexually assualting a 14 year old boy.
- This infamous incident made headlines last year when the victim’s mother filed an FIR wherein she had alleged that her child of 14 years played tennis at the District club Company and it was there that he came in contact with the accused Jitendra Guliya who also played tennis there.
- It was alleged that he persuaded her son to accompany him to his residence where he gave the victim a drink laced with some intoxicants and after he thereafter committed unnatural sex with him. It was also alleged in the complaint that the accused had videographed the entire incident and threatened the victim of dire consequences if he talked about the incident with anyone.
- It was also alleged by the complainant that the accused had later admitted his guilt and asked for her forgiveness and also assured her that he would not repeat the same in the future. It was also alleged in the FIR that the accused along with a police officer named PL Yadav tried to frame the complainant in a false case of extortion.
- The Counsel for the petitioner alleged that the incident had come to light on 28-10-2021 when the complainant saw the accused kissing the victim but the FIR was lodged on 31-10-2021 after an inordinate delay and only after a case of extortion was registered. It was also alleged that the statements of the complainant as well as the victim reveal that no such confrontation was made on the phone call with the petitioner.
- The learned Counsel further submitted that the entire case was a fabrication as no independent witnesses had corroborated her allegations regarding sexual abuse.
- The Hon’ble Rajasthan HC relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs CBI (2021) SCC wherein the Court had observed that from the earliest times, it has been laid down that the object of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Thus, the HC observed that pre-conviction detention is not authorised by law. Imprisonment may follow a judgement of conviction but should not precede it.
- The Court observed that in the present case, no apprehension has been shown by the State nor has any material been brought on record to show that the accused may not appear for his trial. The seriousness of the allegation is not the only factor which needs to be considered for rejecting bail.
- The Court further observed that the accused is a judicial officer and if the pre-conviction detention does not lead to a conviction then the damage to his reputation could never be compensated. The Court also observed that the accused was languishing in prison and that his further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose.
- Thus, the Court enlarged the accused on bail.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
