Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 836 (PNJ)

Paramjeet Kaur alias Seema v. State of Haryana

2000-08-01

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
ORDER K.S. Kumaran, J. - Petitioner-Paramjeet Kaur alias Seema has approached this Court under Section 439(2) Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the bail granted to respondents 2 to 6 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 264-1 of 1996 under Sections 366, 376, 354, 313, 506, 149 Indian Penal Code. The complaint against the said respondents was lodged by the petitioner wherein she has stated among other things, as follows :- 2. In February, 1995, a proposal to marry the complaint with 2nd respondent- Rishi was made by the 3rd respondent-Bansi. The complainant and respondents- Rishi, Bansi and Sheela west to a Theatre for exchange of views. Rishi led the complainant, Bansi and Sheela to the box of the theatre. After some time Bansi and Sheela left the box, Rishi committed rape of the complainant. After Rishi left the box, the other respondent Bansi also committed rape on the complainant. The complainant went to the Police Station, Sirsa to give a complaint against the accused but respondent Bansi, who is a Head Constable of the Police Station abused her and turned her out of the Police Station. After 2/3 days the complainant sent written complaint to the DIG, Hisar by post, but no action was taken. The complaint became pregnant as a result of the rape, and respondents - Rishi, Bansi and Sheela -brought the complainant to a hospital at Sirsa and miscarriage was caused without the consent of the complainant. Rishi signed the required papers as guardian of the complainant, but by giving a wrong address. 3. On 12.10.1996, when the complainant had gone to the house of 5th respondent-Santosh Rani, she asked the complainant to sit in her house and went away, and returned with respondents - Rishi, Bansi and Bittu. Respondents - Rishi and Bansi - threatened the complainant, and Rishi offered to pay Rs. 35,000/- for hushing up the case, but the complainant did not agree. Santosh Rani and her husband-Bittu also made such a suggestion to the complaint, because Rishi is a multi-millionaire and Bansi is a Head Constable and, therefore, her case will not succeed. Rishi, Bansi, Santosh Rani and Bittu abducted the complainant in a car, brought her to a room opposite to G.T.M., Sirsa, stripped the complainant naked, and Rishi, Bansi, Bittu teased her. Rishi, Bansi, Santosh Rani and Bittu abducted the complainant in a car, brought her to a room opposite to G.T.M., Sirsa, stripped the complainant naked, and Rishi, Bansi, Bittu teased her. Rishi got some photographs of the complainant in naked position as also the photographs of complainant and accused-Bittu in naked position. The complainant has made written complaints to the I.G. of Police, Haryana on 10.10.1996 and 12.10.1996. 4. Respondents 2 to 6 were granted bail by the C.J.M., Sirsa. Therefore, the petitioner-complainant filed an application before the Sessions Court, Sirsa for cancellation of the bail, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissed the application. Hence the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court under Section 439(2) Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the bail granted to respondents 2 to 6. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contends that from a perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the offences of abduction and rape are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, and therefore, the learned C.J.M. had no jurisdiction to grant bail. He also contends that even otherwise, the accused have to make out special reasons for granting bail in anticipation of arrest. But the learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, contends that even if bail had been granted wrongly to respondents 2 to 6, the same cannot be and need not be cancelled. The learned counsel for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 contends that these respondents who have been released on bail, have not misused the concession of bail and have also not violated any condition of bail and, therefore, there are no grounds for cancelling the bail. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 relied upon the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Sukhminder Singh alias Mundri, 1998(2) RCR 513. That was a case where the accused was wrongly enlarged on bail by giving him the benefit of Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code This Court found that the case was at the stage of evidence, that the accused in that case was regularly (sic) that he had not caused by hindrance to the progress of trial. That was a case where the accused was wrongly enlarged on bail by giving him the benefit of Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code This Court found that the case was at the stage of evidence, that the accused in that case was regularly (sic) that he had not caused by hindrance to the progress of trial. The Court noticed that there was also no allegation that he had made any threat or inducement to any witness or had tried to influence them in any manner. The Court found that there was no allegations that the accused had obtained the bail by practising fraud or misstatement of any description. In these circumstances, this Court did not order the cancellation of the bail. The learned counsel for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 also relied upon another decision of this Court in Devinder Singh v. Harbans Singh, 1993(3) RCR 325. In that case bail had been granted taking note of the non-attribution of any overt act to the accused, and the fact that all the prosecution witnesses except a formal witness had been examined, and that the accused had been on bail for more than a year. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the Court did not cancel the bail granted to the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relied upon a decision of this Court in Chawli v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR 851. That was also a case where the prosecutrix complained of gang rape. The matter was under investigation and the accused were released on bail. The prosecutrix filed a petition before the High Court for cancellation of the bail granted to them. This Court taking into consideration the serious allegation of gang rape and the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail even while the investigation was in progress, cancelled the bail granted to the accused. But in this decision also, it has been pointed out that unless plausible and cogent reasons are assigned for cancellation of bail, the bail should not be cancelled and the facts of each case are required to be considered while granting or while cancelling the bail. 7. But in this decision also, it has been pointed out that unless plausible and cogent reasons are assigned for cancellation of bail, the bail should not be cancelled and the facts of each case are required to be considered while granting or while cancelling the bail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon another decision of this Court in Jagan Nath v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) RCR 114, wherein this Court found that according to the F.I.R., the statements of the father, grandfather of the deceased and other witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code it appeared that the respondents used to harass the deceased in connection with the dowry, who died due to burn injuries in the house of her in-laws. The Court also found that the investigation pointed out that the deceased was either burnt in connection with the demand for more dowry or that she committed suicide on being tortured by her in-laws. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court held that the Sessions Judge was not right in releasing the respondents (before the High Court) on bail. 8. But the learned counsel for respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 372, wherein it was held as follows :- "Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence." 9. We will analyse the present case on our hand in the light of these decisions. The petitioner before this Court who is the prosecutrix, has alleged in her complaint that in February, 1995 a proposal was made for the marriage of herself with 2nd respondent-Rishi and for that purpose, the 3rd respondent-Bansi and 4th respondent-Sheela are alleged to have suggested that the complainant and respondents-Rishi, Bansi and Sheela should meet in a theatre to exchange their views. The petitioner has also alleged that she was raped in the box of the theatre in the year 1995. Thereafter once again in October, 1996, respondents-Rishi, Bansi, Santosh and Bittu are stated to have abducted and taken her to a room and even taken her photographs in a naked position. 10. Of course, the learned C.J.M. has granted bail to respondents 2 to 6 even though he had committed the accused for trial to the Court of Sessions. Obviously, he had no jurisdiction to do so. But the prosecutirx moved an application for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court, Sirsa and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissed the application by holding that the accused had been appearing regularly on each and every date and that there is no apprehension that they would tamper with the evidence. He has also held that the bail should be cancelled if the accused tampers with the investigation or with the evidence or runs away to a foreign country or goes underground or beyond the control of the sureties or commits an act of violence against the police or the prosecution witness, but all these ingredients are missing in this case and, therefore, there was no ground for cancelling the bail. 11. Taking into consideration the allegations made (against) respondents 2 to 6 and the fact that they have been released on bail in January, 1988, I am of the view that the bail granted to the respondents in this case need not be cancelled. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has himself pointed out that the accused have been appearing in Court and that there is no other material justifying the cancellation of bail. Of course, it has been now stated in the petition before this Court that respondents - Rishi and Bansi have throughout been threatening and pressurising the petitioner not to pursue the case. The dates and other details of such threat have not been furnished in the petition and no complaint to the police or the Court with regard to the alleged threat appears to have been given. 12. In these circumstances, though the learned C.J.M. had no jurisdiction to granted bail, I am of the view that the bail granted to respondents 2 to 6 need not be cancelled since, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the case and held against cancellation of bail. 12. In these circumstances, though the learned C.J.M. had no jurisdiction to granted bail, I am of the view that the bail granted to respondents 2 to 6 need not be cancelled since, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the case and held against cancellation of bail. Further, the bail has been in operation from 1998 and there is nothing to show that respondents 2 to 6 have done anything to forfeit the same. Therefore, even if the bail had been granted wrongly. I am of the view, in the circumstances of the case, that there is no need to cancel the bail. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.