The court criticised the Investigating Officer (IO) for an alleged lack of a fair investigation and directed a higher officer to conduct an inquiry into the manner of the investigation.
Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana, hearing the bail plea, noted that there was no medico-legal case supporting the allegations of rape and sodomy, especially as the complainant refused an internal examination.
The judge also noted discrepancies in the complainant’s antecedents, revealing prior FIRs with similar allegations against different individuals, and stressed the need for a thorough investigation.
The court questioned the complainant’s choice of seeking mediation rather than immediately informing the police about the alleged rape. It noted that the complainant did not provide her phone for investigation, did not join the investigation, and had not disclosed her present address to the IO.
Despite the serious nature of the offence, the court found the accused’s investigation complete and expressed concerns about the fairness of the process.
It granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety.
During the proceedings, the accused’s counsel claimed the doctor was lured into a honey trap racket run by the complainant. The court criticised the IO for not taking action on the doctor’s complaint and ordered an inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to examine the conduct of the investigation.
–IANS
spr/vd
