The Meghalaya High Court has granted bail to a 21-year-old man accused of raping his mother stating when it comes to consideration of bail applications, the well-settled principle of bail jurisprudence is that the courts should usually resort to “Bail and not Jail”, of course, under the facts and circumstances of each case.
Justice Wanlura Diengdoh was hearing a case where the accused was said to have been caught in the act of rape after he was allegedly seen by his nieces lying on top of his mother on June 3, 2020 at about 1 am.
The counsel for the petitioner, S. Nonsiej argued that the statements of the eye-witnesses were contrary, and the complainant herself had filed a bail application before the Magistrate where she categorically stated that no offence was committed by the accused. In fact, even the medical report did not show evidence of a sexual assault.
He sought bail for the accused while bringing the Court’s attention to the fact that he had been in custody for the last 19 months.
Senior Public Prosecutor, S. Sengupta argued that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused based on the eye-witnesses, therefore, it would not be proper for the Court to enlarge the accused on bail.
Justice Diengdoh noted that the complainant has initially lodged the FIR alleging that her own son has committed rape on her, but in her statement u/s 164 CrPC, she could not definitely say that she was raped by the accused/petitioner.
“The fact that she has retracted her statement in the form of an averment in a bail application filed by her on behalf of the accused/petitioner also speak volumes about her pursuing the matter in earnest,” he said.
However the bench denied to make any observation at this juncture and said that the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses will be tested during their examination in Court in due course.
The judge relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs Central Bureau of Investigation where it held that “the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.”
