HC slams ‘insensitive’ officer,asks top cops to monitor case

The directions were passed in response to two anticipatory bail applications filed by Kamla and Kamlesh,whose names had figured in the rape case. Dismissing the bail applications of the duo,the court ruled: “The petitioners have not been arrested. Why will they then approach the court seeking protection?”

In what came as a thorough dressing down for the IO,the court remarked: “It is rare to see an IO come forward to say that the custody of a person is not needed. The assertion in the FIR that the petitioners had taken the girl to Bhupinder has simply been ignored by the UT police.”

Terming the entire incident as a “beastly act”,the court added: “The minor girl was not intelligent enough to complain. The consequences and the fate of this girl are there for everyone to see and realise. The lust of the accused and the apparent connivance of the petitioners have led to the ugly situation. This is required to be looked into.”

Bail plea of accused dismissed

The bail application of Bhupinder Singh,prime accused in the Nari Niketan rape case,was dismissed by Additional District and Sessions judge Raj Shekhar Attri on Thursday. Singh was arrested on May 18 after the victim was found to be pregnant.

“It is highly shocking that a mentally-challenged minor girl fell prey to villainy and was sexually ravished by none else than her own protectors —this is a loathsome sin and a blot on mankind,” ruled the court.

While dismissing the bail plea,the court observed that in the entire episode,as stated by the prosecution,Bhupinder is the “chief wicked character”. “There is ample evidence on record that he is the evildoer and malefactor. The accused was a security guard deployed to watch over and provide security to the inmates of Nari Niketan but he himself became a blackguard,” said Justice Attri. While requesting bail,the counsel of the accused submitted that it is not certain whether the victim was sexually assaulted in Nari Niketan or Ashreya and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. It was contended that the case requires clearer investigation. But the prosecution contended that the victim had pointed to the accused when asked about the sexual assaults. “It was his duty to protect the victim. But serious allegations with regard to sexual assault have been levelled against him,” stated the court in its dismissal order.