Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping a 17-year-old girl. Also, his argument that both were friends was also rejected. The court said that friendship does not give license to repeatedly rape the victim, hold her hostage or brutally beat her.
Justice Swaran Kant Sharma rejected the man’s plea in the case registered under the Prevention of Child Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act and noted that the accused has not yet joined the investigation while his anticipatory bail plea has been either withdrawn or rejected four times earlier.
He also said, “The argument on behalf of the applicant that the applicant and the complainant were friends and hence it could be a case of consensual relationship, cannot be accepted by this court.”
“Even if the parties concerned were friends, friendship does not permit the applicant to repeatedly rape the victim, hold her hostage in his friend’s house and beat her mercilessly, as prima facie stated by the complainant in her statement, which is also corroborated by the medical records,” the judge said in the order passed on October 17.
According to the FIR lodged based on the complaint of the minor girl, she knew the accused as a neighbor for many years. She alleged that he took her to his friend’s house, where he assaulted and repeatedly sexually assaulted her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the incident.
The accused had sought bail on the grounds that there was a delay of 11 days in filing the FIR, and he had also said that the relationship between him and the victim was consensual.
Rejecting the accused’s argument of delay, Justice Sharma said, “Naturally, due to the fear and trauma of the said incident, the complainant had initially refrained from telling his parents about the incident.”
The judge said, “Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and the serious nature of the allegations made in the present case, and prima facie corroborated by the material on record, this Court finds that no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.”
