By PTI
JABALPUR: Dismissing the bail application of a police constable accused of raping and impregnating a woman, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to transfer him as well as Jabalpur’s Additional Director General of Police (ADG) and Chhindwara’s Superintendent of Police (SP) to remote areas in the state so that the constable does not influence the witnesses in the case.
In the order passed on April 21, the single bench of Justice Vivek Agrawal said the forensic evidence in the case has been tampered with.
Constable Ajay Sahu was arrested in the case on November 13, 2021 based on the complaint filed by the woman, who alleged that he raped her, after which she underwent abortion.
Sahu had submitted a bail application in the court.
“As far as merits of the present appeal are concerned, it is evident that forensic evidence has already been tampered with and now the case is dependent on the ocular evidence.
Therefore for the present when the appellant (Sahu) appears to be wielding sufficient influence on various authorities who are supposed to be independent, probability of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out.
“Thus, unless important prosecution witnesses are examined it cannot be said that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail,” the high court said in its order.
The court said it would have handed over this case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in view of the conduct of the police personnel, including the constable, Superintendent of Police – Chhindwara and Additional Director General of Police – Jabalpur.
“But at this distance of time when Civil Surgeon of District Hospital, Chhindwara and concerned police personnel have already played their role, it is not possible to retry the sample. Therefore, any indulgence of the CBI prima facie does not appear to be of immediate help in protecting the rights of the victim,” it said.
“Therefore, instead of handing over the investigation to the CBI, it is directed that concerned officials be transferred, specially the appellant, to a far-flung place in Madhya Pradesh so that he is not able to influence the witnesses as now case is to be decided on its own merits in view of the available ocular evidence,” it read.
