‘Victim's Body Language Didn't Reflect Trauma, Remained Quite For Long Time’: High Court Grants Bail To Former Punjab MLA

Granting bail to former MLA Simarjit Singh Bains in a rape case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday observed that there is no evidence that the victim reflected any trauma through her body language or conduct or complained to anyone about the forcible assault.

"There is no allegation that she did not do so because she was under a shock. There is no evidence that the consent was obtained by misconception of facts. Thus, a reading of the allegations, more particularly the fact that Kamalpreet Singh [neighbour of accused] contradicted the victim’s statement and that despite numerous opportunities, she remained quiet for a long time, would dent her credibility, and such a dent would not justify any further pre-trial incarceration," said Justice Anoop Chitkara in the bail order.

Bains was arrested in July 2022 in the rape case registered by Ludhiana Police in 2021. The case was registered against Bains and six others. The woman has stated that she had approached Bains due to her poor financial condition, which was caused by her husband's death, but Bains, taking advantage of her plight, allegedly raped her.

The counsel representing Bains argued that there are "vital improvements and omissions" in the complaint which led to the registration of FIR. "Initially, the petitioner was not involved, and on 10.10.2020, the matter was settled between the parties after recording their statements. After that, the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police also noted in the files that the complainant's satisfaction stands recorded, and no action was required to be taken," Senior Advocate APS Deol argued.

Deol also said that the FIR was registered to ruin Bains' political career at the instance of his political opponents. "If a lady is raped for the first time, she will refrain from visiting such a person again unless she was blackmailed by revealing such an act or by showing her video or photographs, which is not the present case. The victim's conduct for visiting the petitioner again and again prima facie points out her consent for whatever has happened," he argued.

State argued that there is no inconsistency in the victim’s allegations, and there is corroboration through call details records. The court was told that the accused's accomplices were intimidating the victim.

Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta, representing the complainant, submitted that her consent has to be seen in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, which had aggravated her financial constraints and put her into severe mental stress. "Every time the victim went to the petitioner, he ravished her taking advantage of her distress and, thus, how a woman in distress could be a consenting party to sexual intercourse. As such, the plea for consent is an afterthought to mock her plight," Gupta said.

Granting bail to Bains, Justice Chitkara in the order took note of the statement given by one Kamalpreet Singh under Section 161 CrPC. Singh is a neighbour of Bains and stated that on account of the rush to the petitioner's house, some people come and stay in his house. He said though the woman had come his house, Bains hadn't met her there.

"A perusal of the bulky and thick file reveals that the first episode was alleged on August 04, 2020, when the petitioner called the victim to his office and raped her in the cabin. The victim’s stand was that she was helpless, and she could not resist because the accused had promised her financial help, as she could not pay her monthly rent. After that, from September to December 2020, the petitioner called the victim in his office and other places and had coitus with her 10-12 times," the court noted.

It further said: "On October 01, 2020, the victim alleged that she was called into the house of Jasvir Kaur, where the petitioner again committed coitus with her in the presence of her (Jasvir Kaur’s) son, namely Kamalpreet Singh. In his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, Kamalpreet Singh took a contradictory stand and stated that at that time, when the victim had come to sit in their house because of the scarcity of space in the office of the petitioner Simarjit Singh Bains, the petitioner-accused did not visit their house. He further clarified that in his presence, the petitioner did not meet the victim in their house." 

The court said the possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions.

"Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973," said the court.

Directing Bains to surrender all his weapons along with the arms license, the court said that till the completion of trial, he "shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objectionable behaviour towards the victim and victim's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the victim's home."

The court also clarified that any observation made in the order is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 

"In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behaviour," it said at the end of the order.

Title: Simarjit Singh Bains versus State of Punjab

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 18

Click Here To Download Order