SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sub-Judge Got Bail in Rape Case - J&K HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In October 2021, a fast track court in Jammu convicted Sub-Judge Rajesh Kumar Abrol of violating Sections 420 (cheating) and 376 (rape) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to sub-judge Rajesh Kumar Abrol (appellant), who was convicted by a fast track court in Jammu in 2018 for raping and cheating a woman who had sought his legal assistance

The High Court was hearing an appeal against a fast track court's October 2021 judgement convicting and sentencing Abrol to ten years in prison for rape (Section 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act) and cheating (Section 376 RPC).

According to the prosecution, the victim, a resident of the Ramban district, met Abrol while she was defending herself in court. Abrol, a judge, promised legal assistance and requested domestic support from her. Having a child to support, the woman began working in the home of Abrol, who also promised her daughter a better education. The accused promised to pay her a monthly salary of 5,000. The appellant ended the victim's marriage to her husband by procuring a notarized divorce decree. Later, when Abrol learned that she was planning to leave his home, he pleaded with her to remain, placed Maang on her forehead, and assured her that she would henceforth be his wife.He also disclosed that he had divorced his wife and had been living alone for the past seven years. By these actions, the defendant obtained the victim's consent to engage in sexual activity with her. She yielded to his pressure without disclosing it to anyone.

According to the prosecution, after one year of marriage to Abrol, the woman discovered that he had betrayed her, as he was already married to another woman, his second wife, following the dissolution of his first marriage.

The trial court stated in its order of conviction that there was a complete chain of events and facts indicating that the accused committed the crime, and that all the circumstances brought to light and established were consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.

On appeal, Abrol's attorney argued that the request for suspension of sentence and bail should be liberally considered unless there is a statutory restriction.The Additional Advocate General opposed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant ruined the survivor's life under the guise of marriage and therefore does not merit leniency.

After examining the opposing arguments, the High Court determined that there is no statutory restriction or prohibition against suspending the appellant's sentence and releasing him on bail. Therefore, the court suspended Abrol's sentence and granted him bail.

D.D:30.05.2022

Rajesh Kumar Abrol V/s  UT of J&K

Latest Legal News