"Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail Amidst FIR Delay and Lack of Conclusive Evidence"
In the present case the court emphasized the importance of deciding bail applications promptly, ideally on the first date of hearing. This can be achieved by ensuring that the case diary is made available to the court immediately. The court noted that written objections from the State are generally unnecessary in bail applications, except where a specific statute mandates it. By relying on the material in the case diary, the court can avoid delays and ensure timely justice.
The Court granted Bail to the accused as the FIR was lodged six months after the alleged incident raising doubts about the reliability and urgency of the complaint
The opinion of the Doctor was not properly documented as the report does not reflect any external injuries on the prosecutrix's body or private parts. However, sexual assault is not ruled out.
More so, the applicant was in custody for over one and a half years, which the court found substantial given the circumstances and the inconclusive evidence presented.
Gorav Sayal v. The UT of Jammu and Kashmir & SHO Nowshera Rajouri
Bail Application 423/2022
Before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Laddakh at Jammu
Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan J
Fact: Gorav Sayal, a 25-year-old man from District Rajouri, Jammu has filed a bail application. He is accused of offence under Section 376 IPC for allegedly committing rape on March 20, 2022 .
The FIR was registered on September 13, 2022, after a six-month delay. He has been in custody since October 29, 2022.
Issue: Whether Gorav Sayal should be granted bail considering the delay in the FIR registration, the inconclusive #MedicalLegalCertificate (MLC), and the alleged harassment of the prosecutrix.
Point of Argument:
Argument of the Applicant's Counsel: The FIR was delayed due to ongoing compromise talks between the applicant and the prosecutrix, involving the village Sarpanch. The MLC does not show any external injuries on the prosecutrix, and the basis for the sexual assault opinion in the MLC is unclear.
Argument of the State: The prosecutrix has been consistently harassed and forced to withdraw her statement. Despite multiple opportunities, the prosecutrix has not contested the case herself, raising concerns about her willingness to pursue the complaint
Court's Observation:
There is six-month delay in FIR registration and the applicant's incarceration for over one and a half years.
The MLC is inconclusive, showing no external injuries or injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix.
The prosecutrix has had multiple opportunities to contest the case but did not appear in court.