HC refuses to grant relief from arrest to president of Nainital Milk Federation

Dehradun: The single bench of Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma of Uttarakhand high court (HC) on Wednesday refused to grant relief from arrest to Nainital Milk Federation (NMF) president, Mukesh Bora who was accused of raping a woman and her minor daughter on the pretext of securing employment for the woman, in light of the Supreme Court's directive regarding interim protection to the accused under Article 226.
"The apex court has observed that interim protection under Article 226 should not be granted routinely, casually or mechanically, especially when the investigation is in progress and the facts remain hazy. When the entire material is not available before the court, the HC should refrain from passing an order of interim protection in favour of the accused persons," the court remarked.
On Sep 13, the HC's coordination bench had granted him interim relief from arrest, following the registration of an FIR against him under IPC sections 376 (2)(n) (continuously raping a woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) and the Pocso Act.
The regular bench of Justice Sharma heard Bora's stay application, wherein his counsel contended that the coordinate bench had granted an interim order in his favour, stipulating that until the next listing date, Bora will not be arrested and would extend full cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
However, the state counsel asserted that Bora is not fully cooperating with the investigation. "His mobile phone remains unrecovered and the specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused are also required. Therefore, custodial investigation is imperative for a thorough investigation of the case," said GS Sandhu, additional govt advocate.
Sandhu added, "Granting Bora interim protection at this juncture would adversely impact the investigation and lead to a miscarriage of justice." The counsel representing the woman also opposed the interim relief appeal, arguing that "Bora, having committed the heinous offence of rape, is not entitled to any protection, as the offences have a grave impact on society and granting him interim protection would frustrate the larger public interest".
After considering the arguments, the HC said, "This court is of the considered view that the accused is not entitled to any interim protection at this stage. Accordingly, the stay application is hereby rejected."
The court directed the state counsel to file a detailed counter-affidavit in the meantime and listed the case for the next hearing on Dec 17.