The Delhi High Court this week dismissed a bail application filed by a man accused of raping his daughter-in-law (Ahshan v State)..While doing so, Justice Subramonium Prasad noted,"Rape is not merely a physical assault; it is often destructive of the whole personality of the survivor. The act of rape has the ability to scar the mental psyche of the survivor and this trauma can persist for years.".The Court further clarified that belated filing of the First Information Report (FIR) in the case would not automatically mean that the case is false."The fact that the FIR was filed after two months does not mean that the prosecutrix has filed a false case," the order stated..The prosecutrix had alleged that her 65-year-old father-in-law had raped her when her husband was away, and had threatened her not to tell anyone about the incident. Out of fear of the consequences, she could not muster the courage to tell her parents about the incident. She claimed that she was also being harassed by her husband, brother-in-law and other members of the family..Two months later, she finally disclosed the incident to her parents, after which an FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.After his arrest, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts. This prompted the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court for bail..Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that the case arose out of a matrimonial dispute and claimed that the prosecutrix has tried to implicate everybody in the family. It was also argued that the FIR was filed two months after the occurrence of alleged offence, and that no explanation has been given for such delay. He further submitted that the prosecutrix refused to undertake an internal examination. On these grounds, he requested the Court to grant bail to the petitioner, who was suffering from some ailments..The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments made by the petitioner and argued that he would threaten the prosecutrix if granted bail. .After hearing both parties at length, the Court decided in favour of the prosecutrix, denying bail to the petitioner."Looking at the fact that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix, the possibility of threatening the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out at this juncture," the Court ruled.Having regard for the old age of the petitioner, the Court directed the trial court to dispose of his matter as expeditiously as possible..[Read order]
The Delhi High Court this week dismissed a bail application filed by a man accused of raping his daughter-in-law (Ahshan v State)..While doing so, Justice Subramonium Prasad noted,"Rape is not merely a physical assault; it is often destructive of the whole personality of the survivor. The act of rape has the ability to scar the mental psyche of the survivor and this trauma can persist for years.".The Court further clarified that belated filing of the First Information Report (FIR) in the case would not automatically mean that the case is false."The fact that the FIR was filed after two months does not mean that the prosecutrix has filed a false case," the order stated..The prosecutrix had alleged that her 65-year-old father-in-law had raped her when her husband was away, and had threatened her not to tell anyone about the incident. Out of fear of the consequences, she could not muster the courage to tell her parents about the incident. She claimed that she was also being harassed by her husband, brother-in-law and other members of the family..Two months later, she finally disclosed the incident to her parents, after which an FIR was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.After his arrest, the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts. This prompted the petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court for bail..Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that the case arose out of a matrimonial dispute and claimed that the prosecutrix has tried to implicate everybody in the family. It was also argued that the FIR was filed two months after the occurrence of alleged offence, and that no explanation has been given for such delay. He further submitted that the prosecutrix refused to undertake an internal examination. On these grounds, he requested the Court to grant bail to the petitioner, who was suffering from some ailments..The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments made by the petitioner and argued that he would threaten the prosecutrix if granted bail. .After hearing both parties at length, the Court decided in favour of the prosecutrix, denying bail to the petitioner."Looking at the fact that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix, the possibility of threatening the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out at this juncture," the Court ruled.Having regard for the old age of the petitioner, the Court directed the trial court to dispose of his matter as expeditiously as possible..[Read order]