Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bombay High Court emphasizes the gravity of allegations and the impact on the victim's mental health in rejecting bail application.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Chavan quoted the victim's harrowing account from her notebook: "I opened up to you and you judged me... kisine bhi mujhe nahi samjha" (No one understood me). The court acknowledged the deep psychological scars left by the accused's actions, as reflected in the victim's writings.

The Bombay High Court has denied bail to Mehraj @ Meraj Kaddan Khan, the accused in a grave case involving multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The order, delivered by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, underscores the severity of the allegations, which include repeated sexual assault, unnatural sex, and intimidation. The court emphasized the detailed and consistent testimony provided by the victim, highlighting its significant psychological impact.

The case revolves around a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the victim's father at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai. According to the FIR, the victim, who was 17 years old at the time, had been subjected to ongoing sexual abuse by the applicant since she was in the 4th standard. The victim's ordeal came to light when her family discovered a handwritten notebook detailing the abuse, which included accounts of forced sexual acts, threats, and psychological manipulation by the accused and his wife.

Gravity of Allegations:

The court noted the particularly heinous nature of the crimes alleged. Justice Chavan remarked, "The crime alleged to have been committed by the applicant is not only shocking the conscience of any prudent man but it is also obnoxious. Due to such horrendous crime, the victim has turned on as a nymphomaniac"​​. The handwritten notes by the victim, detailing her trauma, played a crucial role in the court's decision.

Victim’s Testimony:

Justice Chavan placed significant weight on the victim's testimony, both in her statements to the police and her handwritten notes. The victim described instances where the accused used threats, administered stupefying substances, and coerced her into various sexual acts. The court found these testimonies consistent and credible, despite the delayed reporting of the crimes due to the victim's and her family's fear of social stigma and threats from the accused.

The court discussed the principles of granting bail in such serious cases. It emphasized the potential risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released. Justice Chavan observed, "Pre-trial detention of the applicant would be a punishment to him and, therefore, Counsel would pray for grant of bail. However, the gravity of the offence and the detailed account of the victim’s suffering compel this court to reject the bail application"​​.

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Held – The bail application is rejected in view of the gravity of the offences and the potential impact on the victim and society [Paras 24-25].

 

Date of Decision: 29th April 2024

MEHRAJ @ MERAJ KADDAN KHAN VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Latest Legal News