Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a father-in-law was accused of raping his own daughter-in-law, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that,
Rape is not merely a physical assault; it is often destructive of the whole personality of the survivor.
Prosecutrix submitted that she got married according to Muslim Rites and Customs. After some time of her marriage, her in-laws started to harass her but she remained silent. Further, it was stated that her husband used to beat her and subjected her to unnatural sex several times.
Later, the prosecutrix came to know that her husband was having an affair with some other woman and therefore, she tried to make him understand, but he did not listen to her.
Petitioner raped prosecutrix on 2-3 occasions. On one day the prosecutrix told her brother-in-law about the incidents of rape by the petitioner. Though it is stated that after that day, brother-in-law tried to touch the prosecutrix inappropriately after which the prosecutrix told her parents everything and asked them to take her along.
An FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 323, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860.
In view of the above, petitioner was arrested.
Yogesh Gaur, Counsel for the complainant opposed the bail by contending that the prosecutrix was harassed by her husband, her father-in-law and brother-in-law. Petitioner raped the prosecutrix, hence the bail ought not to be granted to him.
Analysis, Law and Decision
High Court noted on a number of Supreme Court cases with respect to parameters of granting bail, which were as follows:
- Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598
- Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496
Bench expressed that rape is an extremely heinous offence that stipulated minimum punishment of 7 years and can go up to life.
Petitioner was accused of a very heinous offence of raping his own daughter-in-law.
The act of rape has the ability to scar the mental psyche of the survivor and this trauma can persist for years.
In view of the above, bail was rejected.[Ahshan Ali v. State, Bail Appln. No. 2116 of 2021, decided on 21-10-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For the petitioner:
Gaurav Kochar, Advocate
For the respondent:
Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with SI Shubham Singh, PS Jyoti Nagar.
Yogesh Gaur, Advocate for the complainant.