The Delhi High Court has rejected the plea to cancel anticipatory bail for LJP MP Prince Raj in an alleged rape case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the importance of the right to liberty and cited lack of evidence to revoke bail. The court highlighted that the bail decision was based on recorded materials indicating consensual relations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Monday, the Delhi High Court has upheld the anticipatory bail granted to Lok Janshkati Party (LJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Prince Raj in an alleged rape case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the petition filed by the complainant, emphasizing that the relief was granted by the trial court in 2021 after careful consideration of the evidence presented. The court stressed that the right to liberty is a crucial right and cannot be canceled on “mere asking.”
ALSO READ: Delhi court comes down heavily on Delhi police
“The anticipatory bail order was passed on the basis of material collected and placed on record, including audio recordings and transcripts indicating consensual relationships,”
-the court noted in its recent order. It further highlighted additional material related to an FIR concerning extortion filed against the complainant prior to the alleged incident.
The court stated-
“There is no subsequent event shown to this court which warrants any interference with the order granting bail to the accused persons. Considering the same, this court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused, which should not be canceled on mere asking, as an individual’s right to liberty is a crucial right which cannot be interfered with lightly.”
Prince Raj, a relative of the late Ram Vilas Paswan and cousin of Chirag Paswan, represents the Samastipur constituency in Bihar and is affiliated with the LJP faction led by his uncle and union minister Pashupati Kumar Paras.
The complainant, who identified herself as an LJP worker, accused Raj of raping her while she was unconscious. She contested the trial court’s September 25, 2021, decision to grant anticipatory bail, citing an “unusual delay” in lodging the FIR.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Criticizes Delhi Police for Incorrectly Grouping Riot Complaints
Justice Sharma, in her order, cautioned against canceling bail in a “mechanical manner” once granted. The court acknowledged that the trial court had issued a “detailed and reasoned order” while granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing that Raj’s status as a Member of Parliament was not the sole criterion for the decision.
Addressing the complainant’s claim of an attack on her car by the accused, the court found no evidence to support such allegations. Similarly, there was no substantiation for the complainant’s assertion that Raj posted inappropriate messages and content against her on social media.
However, the court granted the complainant the liberty to approach the Witness Protection Committee if she faces any threats. The SHO concerned is obligated to ensure prompt legal action in such cases.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Seeks Delhi Police’s Response on NewsClick Arrests
Raj’s legal representative, Lawyer Nitesh Rana, argued that the case was a result of a honey trap and extortion, asserting that the politician was wrongly implicated. The trial court had previously noted that the complainant and her male friend were involved in extorting money and blackmailing Raj since 2020. The court deemed Raj’s custodial interrogation unnecessary, as there was nothing to be recovered from him.
