The Supreme Court on Monday granted two days’ time to a rape accused to file his reply in an affidavit to a plea filed by the prosecutrix against the bail granted to him in a case of raping her repeatedly on the false promise of marriage and forced her to abort a child.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the accused, submitted that the complainant has not produced the translated copy of photograph in which its mentioned “Bhaiya is Back”.
Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana said, “We are not on translation.”
Luthra replied, “He is a local student leader.”
Justice Hima Kohli asked, “Why was he celebrating?”
CJI Ramana said, “We are giving two days time, put everything in an affidavit.” The bench also comprised Justice Krishna Murari.
On the previous hearing, the Apex Court was informed by the petitioner’s counsel that the accused had put vermilion on her forehead and a mangalsutra, (showing photographs). He has a influential background.
Justice Hima Kohli pointed out from the petition, asked the accused counsel, “What is your response to page 161-163, what are you celebrating. (Bhaiya is Back)? There are hoardings saying (Bhaiya is Back)?”
CJI Ramana had said the Court will cancel his bail right now if he doesn’t answer. “Is he Bhaiya, what is meant by Bhaiya is Back? I am asking you what is Bhaiya is Back?”
The counsel for the accused replied that the hoarding was put up after he got bail and sought time to file a reply to this.
Thereafter, the Court issued notice and directed the accused to file the counter. The CJI had told the counsel for the accused to ask Bhaiya to be careful.
The high court, while granting bail, had said, “Prima facie it is axiomatic that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR, for which, no reasonable explanation has been given either by the prosecution or by the complainant.”
The petitioner’s counsel contented that the accused Shubhang Gontia be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 1,00,000 with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of CrPC. Before the high court, the accused had filed a application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail arrested on 29.09.2021 in connection with Crime No. 39/21 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jabalpur (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC.
The allegation against him is that he repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on various occasions over a period of three years under the garb of false promise to marry with her.
He had submitted that the, “Relationship between the applicant and the complainant was consensual and both the parties mutually agreed for indulging in physical intimacy. The prosecutrix is a major and mature girl having knowledge of all consequences. Further submitted that the prosecutrix and her father want to extort money from the applicant and his family under the guise of the instant case. The applicant did not make any promise with the prosecutrix to perform marriage with her. Apart from it, there is delay of more than six months in lodging the FIR, for which, no justifiable explanation has been given by the prosecution. There is umpteen material to show blotless record of the applicant.”