LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Thursday rejected bail plea of Samajwadi Party functionary Moeed Khan, an accused in the Ayodhya gang rape case.
The bench observed if the accused was released on bail at this stage, he would affect the trial proceedings as his social and financial status is very high and he had earlier tried to win over the informant for making a compromise.
Passing the order, Justice Pankaj Bhatia directed the trial court to record the statement of rape survivor and the informant within next four weeks and permitted the accused to move his bail application afresh afterwards.
Earlier, Moeed's counsel had argued that he was falsely implicated due to a political conspiracy. It was also stressed that Moeed was aged about 71 years and hence he was physically incapable to commit the rape.
Ensure safe presence of survivor, informant before court: HC to SP
An FSL report placed before the court on Monday had confirmed that the DNA sample of Moeed Khan did not match with the DNA of the fetus of the survivor. It, however, confirmed that the DNA of Moeed’s servant Raju Khan had matched with the DNA of the fetus of the minor.
On this, Justice Bhatia said: “The FSL report on record although confirms the paternity of the fetus with the co-accused (Raju) and not with the applicant (Moeed), however considering the mandate of section 3 of the POCSO Act as well as the definition of rape as defined under section 375 IPC, one of the tests is that of paternity, the same alone is not conclusive with regard to the offence being committed or not.”
The prosecution also quoted a Supreme Court order in the case of Bhupinder Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh; (2003) in which the apex court said: “In cases of gang rape the proof of completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required. The statutory intention in introducing Explanation (1) in relation to Section 376 (2)(g) appears to have been done with a view to effectively deal with the growing menace of gang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape and convict them under Section 376 IPC.”
“The specific allegations have been levelled by the victim, the documents on record also demonstrates that the applicant, has a politically clout and taking into account the fact that during the investigation, pressure was exercised for compromise for which an FIR was lodged and taking into account the huge variance in the social and the financial status of the applicant and the victim, at present there is reasonable material to form a view that the applicant if enlarged on bail at this stage can adversely affect the trial, as such, the bail merits rejection at this stage and is accordingly rejected,” the bench concluded.
The bench also directed the director, forensic science lab, to prepare the forensic report of the mobile phone from which the photographs of the rape survivor were alleged to have been taken by the accused persons.
It further asked the Ayodhya superintendent of police to ensure the safe presence of the survivor and her informant before the trial court.
Khan and his house help Raju were named as accused in the case and were arrested on July 30. The survivor was employed as a daily wager at Khan’s home and was allegedly gangraped by him and Raju for over two months.
The 12-year-old gangrape survivor from Ayodhya had undergone a medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) procedure at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Lucknow on Aug 7.
Police had conducted a probe and then filed a chargesheet under the charges of gangrape, threatening, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The chargesheet in the case was filed on Sep 10.
Later, the Ayodhya administration demolished the bakery of Moeed Khan on July 31 after its construction was found illegal.
The bench observed if the accused was released on bail at this stage, he would affect the trial proceedings as his social and financial status is very high and he had earlier tried to win over the informant for making a compromise.
Passing the order, Justice Pankaj Bhatia directed the trial court to record the statement of rape survivor and the informant within next four weeks and permitted the accused to move his bail application afresh afterwards.
Earlier, Moeed's counsel had argued that he was falsely implicated due to a political conspiracy. It was also stressed that Moeed was aged about 71 years and hence he was physically incapable to commit the rape.
Ensure safe presence of survivor, informant before court: HC to SP
An FSL report placed before the court on Monday had confirmed that the DNA sample of Moeed Khan did not match with the DNA of the fetus of the survivor. It, however, confirmed that the DNA of Moeed’s servant Raju Khan had matched with the DNA of the fetus of the minor.
On this, Justice Bhatia said: “The FSL report on record although confirms the paternity of the fetus with the co-accused (Raju) and not with the applicant (Moeed), however considering the mandate of section 3 of the POCSO Act as well as the definition of rape as defined under section 375 IPC, one of the tests is that of paternity, the same alone is not conclusive with regard to the offence being committed or not.”
The prosecution also quoted a Supreme Court order in the case of Bhupinder Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh; (2003) in which the apex court said: “In cases of gang rape the proof of completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required. The statutory intention in introducing Explanation (1) in relation to Section 376 (2)(g) appears to have been done with a view to effectively deal with the growing menace of gang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape and convict them under Section 376 IPC.”
“The specific allegations have been levelled by the victim, the documents on record also demonstrates that the applicant, has a politically clout and taking into account the fact that during the investigation, pressure was exercised for compromise for which an FIR was lodged and taking into account the huge variance in the social and the financial status of the applicant and the victim, at present there is reasonable material to form a view that the applicant if enlarged on bail at this stage can adversely affect the trial, as such, the bail merits rejection at this stage and is accordingly rejected,” the bench concluded.
The bench also directed the director, forensic science lab, to prepare the forensic report of the mobile phone from which the photographs of the rape survivor were alleged to have been taken by the accused persons.
It further asked the Ayodhya superintendent of police to ensure the safe presence of the survivor and her informant before the trial court.
Khan and his house help Raju were named as accused in the case and were arrested on July 30. The survivor was employed as a daily wager at Khan’s home and was allegedly gangraped by him and Raju for over two months.
The 12-year-old gangrape survivor from Ayodhya had undergone a medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) procedure at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Lucknow on Aug 7.
Police had conducted a probe and then filed a chargesheet under the charges of gangrape, threatening, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The chargesheet in the case was filed on Sep 10.
Later, the Ayodhya administration demolished the bakery of Moeed Khan on July 31 after its construction was found illegal.
You may also like
Worker killed, three injured in blast at animal fat processing company in Kerala
'Carvajal's knee injury looks serious, Vini Jr. to under tests for shoulder issue: Ancelotti
Uttar Pradesh: Class 10 student, friends arrested for blackmailing teacher with secretly filmed video in Agra
UAE: Can employer refuse NOC to employee for joining competitors?
