Bail application of alleged rapist of teenager rejected by Thane court

Spread the love

Thane, November 27
Rejecting a bail application by a 35 year old alleged rapist of a 14 year old girl the Thane district court has observed that “This is not at all a case of a ‘love affair’ between a boy and a girl. In her recent order the District Judge Ms. Mridula V.K.Bhatia, rejected the bail application of the arrested alleged accused Jagjitsingh Tinna @ Sunny, who was arrested by Nayanagar police in September 2016 on the charges falling under sections 376,354,and 507, of the IPC and also sections 3,4 and 8 of POCSO Act 2012. It was the case of the prosecution that in May 2016 the applicant kissed the victim while she was alone with him in his house. On the next day, he raped her when nobody was in his house. Thereafter on 15/09/2016 between 15.30 and 17.30 hours, the applicant took the victimin a rickshaw, brought her to flat No.501, Ablee Paradise, Near DMART, Bhayander (West) and raped her on the false promise of marriage. The applicant threatened the victim on her mobile to defame her by showing video clips of the said sexual act. The family of the victim and the accused were known to each other. And the victims mother and wife of the accused were friends. In his submission for the arrested accused the counsel submitted that the sexual intercourse was consensual. The applicant was operated for Kidney stone at Tunga Hospital and it was impossible for him to have sexual intercourse with the victim. There was a delay in lodging the F.I.R. APP Naina Kamthe in her argument before the court vehemently. opposed the bail application on the ground that the offence was of a serious in nature. Two pen drives were recovered from the applicant during his personal search. The said videos are submitted by the I.O. which show explicitly the sexual acts committed by the applicant against the victim.
In the order the judge stated “the I.O. has also placed on record the original birth certificate of the victim which shows her age as 14 years. Consent of a minor is not valid consent under the eyes of law. The I.O. has placed on record the medical certificate issued by the doctor to show that the accused was capable of sexual intercourse despite the operation. The Judgment relied on by the Ld. Adv. for the applicant is not applicable to the facts of the present case since this is a case of a much married 35 years old man having ‘sex’ with a minor who is less than 15 years of age. This is not at all a case of a ‘love affair’ between a boy and a girl.
The judge further added in the order “The offence is serious in nature. The investigation is in progress. The victim is less than 15 years of age. There is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In view thereof, I am inclined to reject the application.

Recommended For You

About the Author: Editorjknews

Facebook