HYDERABAD: Questions are being raised over how Rajkumar, the accused in a POCSO case who allegedly went on a killing spree in Shabad on Friday, secured anticipatory bail. His victims included the 16-year-old complainant in the POCSO case, her mother, grandmother besides his wife and his two young sons.
The killings came about a month after the Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of Cases under the POCSO Act, LB Nagar, granted him anticipatory bail in a case registered at the Shabad police station under Sections 78 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
“Since the petitioner was not taken into custody during the course of the investigation and the material witnesses had already been examined, the petition can be allowed by granting anticipatory bail,” the court observed on June 12.
According to the bail order accessed by TNIE, the court directed Rajkumar to surrender before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Chevella, following which he was to be released on a personal bond of Rs 20,000 with two sureties. It also imposed conditions requiring him to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from contacting the complainant.
The anticipatory bail order has triggered widespread criticism, with many questioning how the accused was able to secure relief despite allegations of repeated stalking, intimidation and death threats.
Accused threatened to kill girl, family
According to the complaint, the minor girl alleged that Rajkumar had stalked and harassed her for nearly a year despite being married and having two children. He allegedly forced her to speak with him over the phone, followed her to college, pressured her to accept his proposal and threatened to kill her if she refused.
The complaint further alleged that the family stopped sending the girl to college because of the repeated harassment. It was also alleged that Rajkumar installed CCTV cameras facing the victim’s house to monitor the family’s movements.
The complaint further stated that on May 16, Rajkumar allegedly waited outside the victim’s college during her Intermediate first-year examination and attempted to drag her away after she came out before family members intervened. He allegedly chased them and threatened to kill them.
In his defence, Rajkumar claimed the allegations were false and motivated by a financial dispute. He contended that he was at a hospital with his wife on the day of the alleged incident, denied installing CCTV cameras facing the victim’s house and alleged that the complaint had been filed to avoid repayment of a debt. Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the allegations were grave.
