Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1338 (PNJ)

Asha Rani v. State Of Punjab

2000-11-07

S.S.NIJJAR

body2000
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. According to the FIR, the complainant has four children. One of them is 14 years old girl, named, Neelam. She stopped studying from sixth class as she failed to pass the examination. In the neighbourhood, there is a house of Naresh @ Kalu son of Har Lal Dhanka, resident of Rampura Mandi. He was constructing a new house. His brother-in-law Sham Lal son of Piara Lal and Mukhtiar Singh @ Puppi, came to the house for assisting in the construction work. The work was commenced about one month before the registration of the case. During this period, one Asha Rani wife of Naresh Kumar @ Kalu had been calling Neelam for helping in domestic work. Asha Rani, in this manner, brought Sham Lal and Mukhtiar Singh into contact with Neelam. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 29.5.2000, Sham Lal and Mukhtiar Singh in connivance with Asha Rani, abducted Neelam. The case was registered on the aforesaid statement of Nand Lal who is the father of the girl that had been abducted. Later on she made a categoric statement that she used to visit the house of Asha Rani, where she was introduced to Mukhtiar Singh and Sham Lal. Asha Rani used to go out of the house leaving Neelam alone with Mukhtiar Singh and Sham Lal. This gave an opportunity to Mukhtiar Singh to rape her. It was further stated by Neelam that Mukhtiar Singh had been telling her that he is a propertied man and that he will marry her. It is also stated that she was abducted at the instance of Sham Lal and Asha Rani. Medical examination of the prosecutrix also shows that she is minor and she has been subjected to sexual intercourse. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial court very rightly dismissed the bail application filed by the Asha Rani. 2. Given the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. the Court would have to take a serious and a concerned view of the matter. The matters concerning sexual exploitation of children cannot be dealt with in an ordinary manner. The Courts have to adopt a protective attitude to ensure that children are not sexually abused when they are left in the care of persons other than the parents or the legal guardians. Sexual exploitation leads to a traumatic life for the victim. The matters concerning sexual exploitation of children cannot be dealt with in an ordinary manner. The Courts have to adopt a protective attitude to ensure that children are not sexually abused when they are left in the care of persons other than the parents or the legal guardians. Sexual exploitation leads to a traumatic life for the victim. Hence, the Courts have to take a very serious view of the allegations. 3. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the present application for bail deserve to be dismissed. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an order dated 8.8.2000 in which the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, has granted bail to Sham Lal co-accused. The learned Sessions Judge makes a pointed reference to the fact that Mukhtiar Singh succeeded in establishing illicit relations with Neelam Rani and he had committed sexual intercourse with her in the house of Asha Rani. Learned Sessions Judge also observed that on 29.5.2000, Mukhtiar Singh told Neelam to come to Taxi Stand at Rampura. Asha Rani dropped Neelam Rani at the Taxi Stand. Mukhtiar Singh noticed and took away Neelam with the active connivance of Sham Lal and Asha Rani. Ultimately, Neelam Rani was recovered from Mukhtiar Singh and Sham Lal at Muktsar. Having noticed the aforesaid prosecution story, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to Sham Lal. The Court also noticed the submission of the prosecution that Sham Lal accused instigated and enticed Neelam to have sexual relation with Mukhtiar Singh. However, he has been directed to be released on bail as there is no allegation by the prosecution that, at any stage, Sham Lal committed rape with Neelam or even outraged her modesty. However, it is to be noticed that the F.I.R. has been registered not only under Section 376 IPC, but also under Sections 363-A, 366 and 120-B of the I.P.C. Section 366 I.P.C deals with offence of kidnapping a minor with a view to having illicit intercourse. The offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. In view of the allegations of criminal conspiracy, it would be irrelevant that Sham Lal did not have sexual intercourse with the minor. Since he connived in the commission of the crime, his case cannot be distinguished from the case of Asha Rani. 4. The offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. In view of the allegations of criminal conspiracy, it would be irrelevant that Sham Lal did not have sexual intercourse with the minor. Since he connived in the commission of the crime, his case cannot be distinguished from the case of Asha Rani. 4. At this stage, when the application for bail filed by present petitioner was about to be dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is possibility of compromise. He has stated that Mukhtiar Singh is ready and willing to marry the girl. Prima facie, I do not see how that would make any difference to be offence having been committed. As Neelam would still be a minor, it would be doubtful whether such a marriage would be permissible in law. 5. However, in the interest of justice, adjourned to 23.11.2000. 6. In the meantime, issue notice to Sham Lal to show cause as to why bail granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, by order dated 8.8.2000, be not cancelled. Order accordingly.