The Gauhati High Court, on August 13, acquitted a student of the Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, accused of sexually assaulting another student, noting that both were the state's "future assets".
The accused has been identified as Utsav Kadam, a BTech student, and the girl is a second-year Chemical Engineering student at the institute.
A chargesheet was filed against the accused under sections 376/328/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Kadam served 120 days in custody.
Raped After Being Intoxicated
The alleged incident took place on March 28, when the accused called the complainant to a school's premises. Kadam lured her under the pretext of discussing her responsibilities as the Finance and Economic Club Joint Secretary, LiveLaw reported.
When she reached there, Kadam forced her to consume alcohol. He assaulted the survivor after she was completely under the influence and unconscious. She woke up the next morning at the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH).
The girl underwent medical treatment and forensic examination at GMCH and was discharged the following day. The survivor was later shifted to a hospital at the institute's premises for further treatment till April 3.
Representing Kadam, advocate K.N. Choudhury said he was a brilliant student kept in custody without any 'credible evidence' against him.
While hearing the bail application, the single-judge bench of Justice Ajit Borthakur said that it was a prima facie case as alleged by the complainant. However, he noted that the probe in the case has been completed.
The judge said both the complainant and the accused were 'talented and the state's future assets' pursuing technical courses at the IIT-Guwahati. Both belong to the age group of 19-21 and hailed from different states, he noted.
For the witnesses cited in the chargesheet, the judge said the court found no possibility of the accused meddling with their evidence or influencing them directly or indirectly.
Case Judicially Well Settled
The judge further noted that the matter was judicially well-settled, and the court was not expected to discuss the merits and demerits of the evidence in the case, except for briefing the prima facie reasons for granting him bail.
The accused has been directed to furnish a bond of ₹ 30,000, along with two sureties.
Meanwhile, advocate Sumitra Sama and additional public prosecutor D Das, appearing on behalf of the victim, strongly opposed granting bail "in such a serious offence, which is against the society." She argued that if bail was granted to the accused, "the trial of the case is certain to be hampered, which may occasion gross injustice to the victim."