The allegations asserted that the accused committed the sexual assault while the victim was alone in a room with him. (PTI)
The counsel for the accused claimed that the latter and the informant were close relatives and the informant had taken a loan from the accused and only due to non-payment of the loan, some dispute arose between both of them and thereafter the informant lodged the FIR
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to an ‘Ojha’ or exorcist accused of raping a 15-year-old girl purportedly under the guise of administering religious healing.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain, upon careful consideration, held that accused Hanuman Ram was not entitled to bail, emphasising the severity of the charges leveled against him.
The allegations asserted that the accused committed the sexual assault while the victim was alone in a room with him.
The bail application was filed by the accused in a case under Sections 376 (3) and 506 of the IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, registered at Balua Police Station in District Chandauli during the pendency of the trial.
The FIR in the case was lodged on July 13, 2023, by the father of the victim, alleging that due to the bad health of his daughter aged about 15 years, he invited the accused, who was an “Ojha” and under the pretext of religious ceremony, he raped his daughter.
However, before the high court, the counsel for the accused argued that the entire allegation made against him was totally false and baseless.
He claimed that the accused and the informant were close relatives and the informant had taken a loan from the accused and only due to non-payment of the loan, some dispute arose between both of them and thereafter the informant lodged the FIR of the present case against the accused levelling false allegation of rape.
He further claimed that since the victim was only 15 years old, she was making allegations against the accused under pressure of her parents and also the medical report also did not support the allegation of rape.
The bail plea was opposed by the Additional Government Advocate who submitted that the accused had misused his position and this fact was evident from both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC.
The court found the accused not entitled to be released on bail. However, it clarified that the observations made during the bail plea shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case during trial.
Source: News18