Woman accuses youth of repeated rape under false promise of marriage in Mangaluru
Mangaluru: A case has been registered at the Mangaluru Women Police Station, Pandeshwar, following allegations of repeated rape by a young man who promised marriage but later reneged on his commitment.
The complaint was lodged by a woman employed in a private company, who stated that she was repeatedly raped by Vinod Raj, a man she had befriended while residing in a rented house in Bikarnakatte. According to the victim, on March 23, Raj entered her home under the pretext of getting drinking water and raped her, assuring her that he would marry her.
ALSO READ: Amasebailu: Absconding POSCO accused arrested
The woman reported that this assault was not an isolated incident, as Raj continued to exploit her over a period of time with repeated false promises of marriage. When she confronted him about his intentions, Raj allegedly refused to marry her and issued threats.
The police have registered a case based on the woman's complaint and an investigation is underway.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Court can reject anticipatory bail but cannot direct accused to surrender: SC
New Delhi (PTI): A court can reject anticipatory bail of an accused but it has no jurisdiction to direct him to surrender before the trial court, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery.
"If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender," the bench said.
The Jharkhand High Court had rejected anticipatory bail plea of the accused and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.
In this case, a complaint had been filed before a magistrate alleging offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document) and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, in connection with a land dispute.
The high court had dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused on the ground that no new circumstances were shown.
It had relied on its earlier order rejecting his first anticipatory bail plea, in which the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail in terms of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
The top court said such a direction was wholly without jurisdiction and said that if a court chooses to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it cannot compel the accused to surrender.
