The Supreme Court heard a statement against a woman’s superior court bail condition linking Rakhi to an abuser
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today requested the assistance of the Attorney General in a motion to suspend the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granting bail to a defendant in a sexual abuse case on the condition that he ask the woman to I tie it “Rakhi”.
A court headed by Judge AM Khanwilkar issued a notice to the attorney general’s office KK Venugopal about an appeal filed by nine lawyers who have said that courts across the country must refrain from imposing conditions that go against the principle of law.
The higher court, in its order of July 30, granted bail to the defendant and imposed the condition that he, together with his wife, visit the house of the complainant and ask him to tie him to ‘Rakhi’ with the promise to protect her to the best of her ability for all times to come.
Lead attorney Sanjay Parikh, who appeared before the petitioners, including attorney Aparna Bhat, told the court that the appeal had been filed in an extraordinary circumstance.
The woman’s trauma is trivialized by such conditions, Mr. Parikh said in court, which also includes Judge BR Gavai.
These types of conditions are imposed contrary to the principle of law. Such observations are being made repeatedly, he said.
Are you filing just for Madhya Pradesh or for the whole country, the bank asked.
To this, Mr. Parikh said that he is submitting with respect to the entire country and the petitioners have prayed to prevent the courts, including the higher courts and the lower courts, from making such observations.
The court, which said it is issuing a notice to the office of the country’s top legal official, released the matter for hearing on November 2.
In their appeal, the petitioners have requested the suspension of the bail condition imposed on the defendants by the higher court.
The statement said that substantial issues of law, including whether in a case where bail is requested it is appropriate for a court to impose external conditions that allow contact between the accused and the complainant, are involved in the matter.
If the condition of bail that is challenged in this document may further victimize the plaintiff and trivialize the trauma she has suffered, the statement said, adding: If the condition of bail mentioned above is in line with the principles governing trials within the criminal justice system?
He said another question of law that comes up for the higher court’s consideration in the matter is whether the High Court should have used circumspection and sensitivity when dealing with a case involving a sex crime committed against a woman.
The higher court erred in imposing a condition that defeated the very purpose of posting bail by ordering the alleged perpetrator to establish contact with the woman, according to the statement.
It alleged that imposing such a condition results in further victimization of the survivor in her own home.
In the context that Rakshabandhan is a guardianship festival between brothers and sisters, such bail status amounts to a great trivialization of the trauma suffered by the author in the present case, he said, adding that the alleged incident was committed by the accused entering by force in the house of the complainant.
While it is customary for courts to award some compensation to survivors of sexual offenses to be paid by the defendant, it is highly objectionable that the higher court in the present case would put the plaintiff in a position where she would be forced to accept the sum of 11,000 rupees as part of the usual Rakhshabandhan ritual.
Furthermore, said bail condition also goes one step further by stating that Defendant No. 2 (defendant) offered Rs 5,000 to the plaintiff’s son, he said.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is posted from a syndicated channel.)
.
