Global Statistics

All countries
180,765,742
Confirmed
Updated on June 25, 2021 3:31 am
All countries
163,692,261
Recovered
Updated on June 25, 2021 3:31 am
All countries
3,915,962
Deaths
Updated on June 25, 2021 3:31 am

Global Statistics

All countries
180,765,742
Confirmed
Updated on June 25, 2021 3:31 am
All countries
163,692,261
Recovered
Updated on June 25, 2021 3:31 am
All countries
3,915,962
Deaths
Updated on June 25, 2021 3:31 am

Important observation of the Supreme Court during the hearing of the rape case, when a boy and a girl are in the room…


New Delhi
The Supreme Court has rejected the application against the order of the Delhi High Court in which the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to a Mumbai-based journalist in a rape case. 22-year-old woman has accused of rape. The aggrieved woman challenged the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail in the Supreme Court.

complaint application rejected
A bench headed by Justice Navin Sinha of the Supreme Court observed that there is no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision and the application of the complainant is
dismissed. The Delhi High Court had on May 13 granted anticipatory bail to the journalist. The woman alleges that the accused raped her on February 20 at a five-star hotel in Chanakyapuri. In the case registered in this case, the accused had approached the lower court for anticipatory bail, but after the application was rejected from there, the door of the High Court was approached.

woman’s lawyer
The counsel submitted that the statement under section 164 clearly shows that he had indicated to her that she did not wish to go beyond a certain point. It is a law that the consent of the woman is required for every part of the sexual act. Since consent was refused at a certain point, the crime would clearly be classified as rape. The woman’s counsel Ramakrishnan told the Supreme Court that the conduct of the accused also needed to be considered by the apex court as he had absconded after the FIR was registered and evaded arrest warrant.

Democracy and Treason
Important note of Supreme Court
By filing an application in the Supreme Court on behalf of the complainant, the lawyer argued that earlier the accused was absconding for 50 days and was evading non-bailable warrant. The Supreme Court said in oral remarks that this matter is of ordinary human behavior. If a man and a woman are in the room and the man insists and the woman accepts it, do we need to say anything more. But at the same time said that whatever comment we are making is only in the context of Bell Cancellation and we are not saying anything about consensus on a broader issue right now.

.



Source link

Leave a Reply

spot_imgspot_img
spot_img

Hot Topics

Related Articles

You cannot copy content of this page
%d bloggers like this: