New Delhi [India], May 5 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday cancelled the bail plea of a rape accused in the light of his blatant conduct subsequent to being released as some posters with the faces of some influential persons of the society in the backdrop, welcoming him with captions like “Bhaiyaa is back”, “Back to Bhaiyaa”, and “Welcome to Role Janeman”.
A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana with Justice Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order which granted bail to the student leader and directed him to surrender within one week.
The apex court was hearing a plea filed by the complainant of the case, who has challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court order granting bail to the accused. She has vehemently urged the SC that the accused’s bail order deserves to be set aside in the light of his blatant conduct subsequent to being released for which reference has been made to his photographs appearing in the social media with his snapshots prominently displayed on posters/hoarding in the forefront with the faces of some influential persons of the society in the backdrop, welcoming him with captions like “Bhaiyaa is back”, “Back to Bhaiyaa”, and “Welcome to Role Janeman”.
The top court observed that the captions tagged to his photographs on social media highlight the superior position and power wielded by the respondent accused and his family in the society and its deleterious impact on the complainant.
The emojis of crowns and hearts tagged with the captions quoted are devoid of any religious sentiments sought to be portrayed by the accused, the court noted.
On the other hand, they amplify the celebratory mood of the respondent accused and his supporters on his having been released from detention in less than two months of being taken into custody for a grave offence that entails a sentence of not less than ten years that may even extend to life, the court noted.
The court also said that the brazen conduct of the respondent accused has evoked a bona fide fear in the mind of the appellant/complainant that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses.
The court also noted that a representation has also been submitted by the appellant’s father to the Superintendent of Police, District Jabalpur expressing the very same apprehension.
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that respondent No. 2 (accused) does not deserve the concession of bail. Relevant material brought on record has been overlooked by the High Court while granting him bail, ” the top court said.
“Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 (accused) is directed to surrender within one week from the date of passing of this order, ” the top court said, adding that it is however clarified that the observations made above are confined to examining the infirmity in the impugned order granting bail to the respondent No.2 (accused) and his conduct thereafter and shall not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case which shall be decided on the basis of the evidence that shall be placed before the trial Court.
Earlier also, the top court had expressed annoyance when it comes to know about a bunch of posters and hoardings reading “Bhaiya is back”, welcoming the bail of a student leader accused of rape.
The top court was hearing a plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order which granted bail to a man, who has been accused of raping a girl on a false promise of marriage.
The complainant has alleged that accused has been in physical intimacy with her since July 2019, when on applying vermillion (sindoor) on her forehead, he had convinced her that they had got married as per Hindu rituals.
Subsequently, in July 2020 when the appellant informed the accused that she was pregnant, he along with his sister had taken her to a private hospital at Jabalpur and had made her consume some pills to undergo abortion, without her knowledge, according to the complainant.
It has been alleged that thereafter, the accused started avoiding the appellant and stopped returning her calls. When confronted by the appellant, he categorically refused to solemnize their marriage. On the appellant’s complaint, the FIR was registered against the accused on June 21, 2021. (ANI)
This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.