Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1274 (PNJ)

Shankar v. The State of Punjab

2012-09-24

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No.56276 of 2012 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No.M-29313 of 2012 1. Shankar, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 50 dated 23.03.2012 at Police Station City Abohar, District Fazilka, for an offence punishable under sections 366, 376 and 120- B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Vandana @ Bindu, the daughter of the complainant is alleged to have been kidnapped by the petitioner with the help of Manju and others. According to him, Manju and others have been granted bail by this court. According to him, Vandana @ Bindu claiming herself to be 20 years old had filed a complaint under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC against her father. He has further submitted that Shankar, the petitioner has filed an application under section 97 Cr.P.C. for issuance of search warrant for recovery of Vandana before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Abohar. According to him, the case got registered against the petitioner is false. He has further submitted that Vandana @ Bindu was aged more than 20 years on the date of alleged occurrence and that she herself went with the petitioner out of her own will. 3. There are conflicting claims in this case; one made by Mangat Ram that his daughter was born on 02.12.1994 and that she was a bit of unsound mind and she had been taken away by Shankar Lal, the other of the petitioner that Vandana @ Bindu was aged more than 20 years and that she had filed a complaint against her father for an offence punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Amid these conflicting claims, it is a fact that on the application of the petitioner filed under section 97 Cr.P.C. , Vandana was called by learned SDM, Abohar and that she did not express her desire to go with the petitioner but she went with her parents. The fact that she is a little of unsound mind, would be a fact in this case, which requires to be investigated. If it is found that she has a bit of unsound mind, then even if she was of the consenting age, it cannot be said that she consented to what Shankar Lal did with her. 4. The fact that she is a little of unsound mind, would be a fact in this case, which requires to be investigated. If it is found that she has a bit of unsound mind, then even if she was of the consenting age, it cannot be said that she consented to what Shankar Lal did with her. 4. Even if the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are taken into consideration, it is not a case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is the main accused in this case. For proper investigation of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.