On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the petition the Delhi High Court’s order to grant pre-arrest bail to Mumbai journalist Varun Hiremath, who is accused of suspecting a 22-year-old woman in National Capital in connection with the FIR, who is detained in the Chanakyapuri Police Department for raping the train station. A vacation bank consisting of Judges Navin Sinha and Ajay Rastogi rejected the complainant’s motion in the rape case.
Senior attorney Nitya Ramakrishnan, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, alleged that the statement was filed against the rape bond issued by the High Court. without taking into account the deliberately proposed legal changes He added that because of the selective reading of the Section 164 statement, the court practically granted the benefit of the doubt.
“Where’s your statement 164?” asked the court. “We are not entitled to it as my lords have said it should not be given to anyone before the indictment, but the Superior Court practically pulled it out for you to read from the order,” said the Senior Counsel. You don’t have to extract it from the Superior Court order, you have virtually extracted it for you to read from the order,” said the senior attorney. You don’t need to extract it from the Superior Court’s ruling, or it will be there. “said the bank. Senior attorney Nitya Ramakrishnan added that the defendant evaded arrest for 50 days, the entire family left their homes and the warrants posted were ignored. “Our question is for bail purposes only. The question of normal human behaviour and understanding. When a man and a woman are in a room, the man makes a request and the woman complies, do we have to say – something else this time? “
The senior attorney replied that India’s Criminal Code requires that clear consent is required for any act. “Imagine a situation where I am undressing but the man wants to do a certain activity and I say no and it is an act of penetration, it becomes a crime,” said the senior attorney a much broader question to be decided later. We have repeatedly emphasized that everything we say is for the purpose of making a deposit. “said the bank.
The court then asked the lead counsel to read portions of the response to the prosecutor’s bail request, which stated that the prosecutor’s Section 164 statement fully reproduced and endorsed its version contained in the FIR. “The part of the FIR says he insisted, but it is not individual, he precedes in the lobby that she is not interested. The higher court made a semantic distinction between insistence and coercion. Even after undressing, before” the penetration, pushed him away, said ‘no’ several times, handed him over, but insisted. The chief attorney, Nitya Ramakrishnan, argued that the mere fact that the defendant was told at one point that the prosecution did not want him, but he said, “Look, I paid 11,000 rupees for the room so you have to meet “.” It was not a state of constant consent. The offensive act of penetration was completely without his consent. Then why shouldn’t he be on pre-trial detention for just one day?!” The Senior Advisor concluded.
The court found that it was unwilling to intervene in the advance guarantee granted to the defendant and rejected the application for special permission.