STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Justice Mohan Lal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while granting interim bail to an accused in rape case, observed that Courts owe more verbal respect to principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
Justice Mohan Lal Manhas of J&K and Ladakh High court granted interim bail to alleged accused Mohd Ayub Ayan of Mahore, Reasi in a case of rape, who was inside jail and facing trial.
Adv A K Sawhney appearing for accused Mohd Ayub Ayan urged before the High court that in fact no rape was committed rather Police has misused its authority in connivance with complainant to take revenge from petitioner, who is public-spirited person and has implicated falsely him.
Adv Sawhney submitted that accused was arrested and was in continuous arrest since then and medical reports also do not support the case as they do not indicate any rape. He submitted that petitioner is a social activist, public spirited person and RTI activist of sixty years of age. He used to protest for cause of general public and in one of such case, he protested against DySP and SHO Police Station Mahore that they were not registering FIR pertaining to rape of a minor and wrote complaints to entire administration. The then SHO and DySP Mahore threatened petitioner that they would implicate petitioner in some false case and he will not come out of jail for several years. Ultimately the complainant was projected by these officers who moved a false complaint Police. A quid pro quo worked between complainant and Police officers and petitioner was falsely implicated and arrested on October 13, 2020. Adv Sawhney urged that matter must be got investigated by CBI against police officers who hushed a serious matter pertaining to security of the State. Justice Mohan Lal, after hearing both parties, observed that on August 24, 2021 charges were framed against accused and till date statements of few witnesses including that of victim have only been record. For last more than 16 months, accused is in detention. As material witness victim/prosecution has been recorded, and even if there is prima facie case against the petitioner, that approach of the court in the matter of bail should be that accused should not be detained by way of punishment, and when the material witness has been recorded there is no question of influencing the prosecution witnesses. It is a trite law that personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and deprivation of liberty is a matter of grave concern. The fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is that a person is believed to be innocent till guilt is proved against him.
Justice Mohan Lal after hearing both the sides observed that in view of aforesaid discussion, as trial is yet to be completed applicant/accused at this stage has made out a strong case for interim bail in his favour, and even there would no danger of course of justice being thwarted if applicant/accused is enlarged on bail in view of fact that statement of victim/ prosecutrix has been recorded by trial court.