The presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need to avoid imposing pre-trial punishment on the accused are central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application filed under Section 437 of CrPC seeking grant of bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No. 50/2019 registered with Police Station, Chanderkote for the offences under Sections 376/506(ii) RPC.

2. Before adverting to the grounds urged by the petitioner to claim bail, it is necessary to take note of the prosecution case.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 05.07.2019, a written complaint was filed by the prosecutrix at Police Station, Chanderkote alleging inter alia therein that she was a resident of Dhalwas, District Ramban and her parents were residing at Jammu. Her marriage with one Mohd. Sadiq son of Saif Ali, petitioner herein, resident of Dhalwas was solemnized about 5/6 years ago. Her husband Mohd. Sadiq is deaf and dumb. About 5/6 months ago, the accused Saif Ali, who happens to be her real uncle (Mama) and father-in-law, asked her to accompany him to Jungle for bringing grass. She claimed that on her refusal, she was beaten and tortured by the accused and was compelled to accompany him to the Jungle where she was raped and threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody, failing which, she would be killed. She also claimed that thereafter she was repeatedly raped by the accused. On the basis of this written complaint, FIR No.50/2019 for commission of offences under Sections 376/506 RPC came to be registered in the Police Station, Chanderkote.

4. During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC was recorded. The prosecutrix was also subjected to medical examination. The I/O, after completing the investigation, concluded that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with the son of the accused who was deaf and dumb. The accused committed rape upon her in the Jungle and also in the house repeatedly for a period of 5/6 months. The allegations levelled by the prosecutrix were, thus, found substantiated by the I/O and, accordingly, challan/charge-sheet was presented in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramban (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') on 16.10.2019. The accused has been charged by the trial Court for the commission of offences under sections 376/506(ii) RPC. The police has arrayed nine witnesses in all and when the bail application was considered by the trial Court, the statement of the prosecutrix had been recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one more witness has been recorded.

5. An application was moved by the petitioner before the trial Court on 19.02.2020 which was vehemently opposed by the prosecution. The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted to bail in a heinous and anti social crime which he had allegedly committed and that long incarceration in jail is no ground to grant the concession of bail. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of bail by the trial Court and, has, thus, filed the instant bail application seeking his release from the custody, inter alia, on the following grounds :

(i) that the applicant was arrested on 08.07.2019 and has been in incarceration for the last more than one year and seven months. When the investigation in the matter has been completed and the challan presented in the competent Court of law, there is no reason or justification to keep the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period;

(ii) that the petitioner is about 68 years old and not keeping good health and, therefore it is all the more necessary to let him off from the incarceration;

(iii) that the contents of the complaint, FIR, challan and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A CrPC and the statement recorded in the Court, even if, taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not make out the offences with which the petitioner has been charged;

(iv) that the FIR registered and criminal proceedings commenced against the petitioner are manifestly attended with mala fide and malicio