Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently rejected the bail application of a man who was booked for raping her minor cousin who later committed suicide.

A single judge bench of the high court comprising Justice Manish Pitale was hearing a bail application filed by the accused who was booked under Sections 305 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as also under Sections 8, 12 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

During the investigation, the police came across a suicide note of the victim and thereupon, the FIR was registered. The applicant remained incarcerated from 12.03.2023 onwards.

The applicants submitted that none of the victims' relatives have supported the investigating authority's case.

An affidavit from the victim's mother was placed on record, wherein she stated that since the applicant is her nephew, she has no objection to bail being granted to him.  

The applicant submitted that the material on record, even if accepted in the form of suicide notes and statements of some of the friends of the victim, does not make out the ingredients of the offence under Section 305 of the IPC.

The Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the suicide note and the report of the handwriting expert to contend that the applicant is to blame completely for the extreme step taken by the 14-year-old victim.

The APP submitted that despite being the cousin brother of the victim, the applicant had treated her in such a manner that she had no alternative but to commit suicide.

The high court in its order said that the suicide note of the victim squarely blames the applicant for having left no alternative for her but to take the extreme step of committing suicide. It added that she specifically made allegations against the applicant as regards creating a situation where she was left with no alternative but to take her own life.

The bench further said that the suicide note recorded that when the victim mentioned the behaviour of the applicant to her parents and relatives, no one believed her and instead they made fun of her.

“It cannot be forgotten that the victim was only 14 years and she was at a sensitive impressionable age, when the actions attributable to the applicant could have had a lasting impact on her mental health,” the order reads.

Therefore, the bench rejected the bail. However, it directed the trial to be expedited