MARGAO, JULY 30
Maintaining that the High Court observations are binding on the court, the South Goa Sessions Court on Friday rejected the bail application of Russian woman rape accused John Fernandes saying his bail plea could be considered only after the main prosecution witnesses are examined in the trial, but not before it.
“The High Court has observed that the accused will be at liberty to apply for bail to the Sessions court after the main prosecution witnesses are examined in the trial of the accused. These wordings are very important and binding on the court. The bail plea could be considered only after the main prosecution witnesses are examined in the trial but not before it”, observed Additional Sessions Judge B P Deshpande.
Judge Deshpande did not agree with the contention of defense lawyer, Adv Anacleto Viegas that there is no question of tampering since the victim is now in Russia. “This contention is not correct as tampering could be done even by any other means and not required the physical presence of victim in India”, he added.
The judge said such a bail application could be entertained only when the main prosecution witnesses are examined and not prior to it once it has been observed by the High Court that no case is made out for bail even after filing of chargesheet and liberty is granted only after examination of the main prosecution witnesses.
Saying that efforts are made by the prosecution and the court to examine the main witnesses as early as possible, Judge Deshpande said the muddemal property is still not received from CFSL, Hyderabad along with the report. “Such muddemal is essential piece of evidence in connection with the offense of rape and identification of it is necessary at the time of trial”, he added.
“The victim’s presence could be secured as early as possible together with other witnesses. Therefore, only because some of the witnesses are examined during the trial, the accused cannot invoke the liberty granted to him by the HC since the main witnesses, the victim and others are yet to be examined”, observed the judge.
On the aspect whether there are ingredients of rape, Judge Deshpande said the same were considered in detail by earlier orders of this court as well as by the High Court, adding “Therefore, such argument is not available to the accused at this stage even though the doctor is examined”.
The Judge said it is well settled that the primary evidence is that of the victim and the same is yet to be received in trial. “I am not inclined to consider successive bail applications without any specific change in the circumstances and more so when the same had been rejected by the High Court”, the Judge said.
