ORDER : M.K. HANJURA, J. 1. In this petition filed, under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in quashing the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class R.S. Pura, Jammu, whereby the respondent No. 3, Masooma Bibi, has been admitted to bail for the commission of offences under Sections 363/109 RPC. 2. This case reflects a sad and a sordid state of affairs. The fences appear to have swollen the crops. Law has been made lame by the very persons, who were supposed to interpret, execute and implement it. It has been made to limp by those designed and entrusted with the task of protecting the life and limb of the citizens of the State. The learned Magistrate appears to have acted in the most cavalier, casual and perfunctory manner in dealing with the application for admitting Masooma Bibi to bail. The prosecuting officer, who has filed the objections and the ASI Police Station R.S. Pura who has submitted the report in the application for enlarging the accused/respondent No. 3 to bail, have suppressed the material facts, perhaps, deliberately in order to facilitate the exit of the accused/respondent No. 3 from the clutches of the law. All the three i.e. the learned Magistrate 1st Class R.S. Pura, the prosecuting officer and the ASI Police Station R.S. Pura appear to have worked in tandem to deny Justice to a hapless girl victimised and exploited sexually. 3. The facts are eloquent. On 14.09.2017, the accused/respondent No. 3 moved an application before the learned Magistrate 1st Class R.S. Pura for admitting her to bail in FIR No. 189/2017 of Police Station R.S. Pura for the commission of offences under Sections 363/109 RPC, on a complaint of the petitioner that his daughter has been kidnapped. The Assistant Sub. Inspector R.S. Pura prepared and submitted a report before the learned Magistrate 1st Class R.S. Pura on 18.09.2017. The prosecuting officer filed his objections to the application of the accused on 19.09.2017. The statement of the prosecutrix, (name withheld) as envisaged and envisioned under Section 164-A Cr.P.C was recorded on 15.09.2017 by the very Magistrate, who admitted the accused/respondent No. 3 to bail by an order dated 21.09.2017, which is impugned here in this petition. 4. The prosecutrix, as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. has a tale to tell. 4. The prosecutrix, as is evident from her statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. has a tale to tell. It is a tale of woe covered by the veneer of human degradation. The statement of the prosecutrix is that she is about 15 years of age. On 22.08.2017 at about 8:00 am, she went to the school. She left the school at about 1330 hours for her home located at Chakrohi, Suchetgarh. However, before she could reach her home, she spotted a vehicle, white in colour that stopped near her. Eight to nine persons were sitting in the said vehicle. All of them, except for the driver, alighted from the vehicle. They started beating her and her friend, who was accompanying her at the moment. One of them was wielding a gun. They dashed her school bag unto the ground and forcibly pushed her into the vehicle. The man, who was armed with the gun, told her that, in case she musters the courage to raise a hue and cry, he will put her to death. After pushing her into the vehicle, they too boarded the vehicle. They started beating her. Only one amongst them, i.e. Mst. Masooma Bibi, who lives in her vicinity, was known to her. She (Mst. Masooma Bibi) along with others forced and coerced her to take water. On consuming the same, she lost her consciousness. The inmates of the vehicle talked to someone on phone. They told him that they will carry her (the prosecutrix) to Punjab. It was pitch dark when the vehicle, in which she was pushed, stopped near a forest. There was no habitation in and around the forest except for a shed "kula." They carried her inside the shed. Out of these persons, 4 to 5 were women. The accused/respondent No. 3 stripped her forcibly. She gave her another set of wearing apparels. She told her that she has to solemnise the marriage with Shokat Ali. A Moulvi was called and he performed her marriage with Shokat Ali. During the night, Shokat Ali, Teju and Salman violated her sexually. All of them confined her in the forest for 20 to 22 days. They would rotate their location every day. During all these 20 to 22 days, Shokat Ali, Teju and Salman raped her. On the 11th day of September, 2017, they forcibly took her to a Court. During the night, Shokat Ali, Teju and Salman violated her sexually. All of them confined her in the forest for 20 to 22 days. They would rotate their location every day. During all these 20 to 22 days, Shokat Ali, Teju and Salman raped her. On the 11th day of September, 2017, they forcibly took her to a Court. They told her to make a statement there to the effect that she is in love with Shokat Ali and wanted to marry him. They also told her that in case she does not state so, she will be killed. Some other persons were also there, whom she can identify but does not know them by their names. When she went inside the Court, she narrated the entire episode to the Presiding Officer. She told him that she does not want to marry Shokat Ali and she has been brought to the Court to make a false statement. On hearing her, the Presiding Officer of the Court summoned the police authorities. The Police authorities took her to the Police Station along with Shokat Ali. They interrogated them and informed the S.H.O. Police Station R.S. Pura about their presence in the Police Station. After sometime the police authorities of Police Station, R.S. Pura reached there along with her father and the village Sarpanch. The police authorities of Police Station R.S. Pura entrusted her custody to her father. Shokat Ali was taken to the police station where he was detained. On the next day, she was subjected to medical examination in R.S. Pura Hospital. At a time when she was kidnapped she did not know anyone amongst these 8 to 9 persons, except for the accused/respondent No. 3. However, since she lived in their company for 20 to 22 days, therefore, she came to know them by their names. They are Shokat Ali, Teju, Salman, Kasim Din, Rashid, Munna, Zulfa and Kabar Rashid. The Prosecutrix has been identified by Sh. Riaz Ahmad Sr. P.O. before the court. 5. Heard and Considered. 6. However, since she lived in their company for 20 to 22 days, therefore, she came to know them by their names. They are Shokat Ali, Teju, Salman, Kasim Din, Rashid, Munna, Zulfa and Kabar Rashid. The Prosecutrix has been identified by Sh. Riaz Ahmad Sr. P.O. before the court. 5. Heard and Considered. 6. No doubt, this Court is conscious of the fact that elaborate documentation is not required to be made in the bail application, but the law provides that while dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order de hors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as is noted by the Supreme Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. [ (2002) 3 SCC 598 ], Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. Etc. [ (2001)6 SCC 338 )] and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr [JT 2004 (3) SC 442]. 7. The law evolved on the subject by the Supreme Court provides that although a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application, yet giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. As noted above, at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated. 8. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. ( 2004 (7) SCC 528 ) In para 11 it was noted as follows: "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh ( 2002 (3) SCC 598 ) and Puran v. Rambilas ( 2001 (6) SCC 338 )." 9. It is also viewed in the said case that the conditions laid down under Section 437 (1)(i) are sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. 10. In Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. ( 2001 (6) SCC 338 ) it has been held as follows: "11. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. This position is made clear by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)." 11. Looking at the instant petition from the perspective of the law laid down above what gets revealed on the face of the statement of the prosecutrix is that a heinous, horrid, and a horrendous crime has been committed by the accused, released on bail, and others. It is a beastly and an abhorrent act, in which, the accused/respondent No. 3 is prima facie found to have abetted and facilitated the commission of the offence of rape on a girl of tender age, that too, by a gang of persons for about 20 to 22 days. It is she, the accused/respondent No. 3 who appears to have offered her some substance forcibly by which she lost her consciousness. It is she, the accused/respondent No. 3 who appears to have offered her some substance forcibly by which she lost her consciousness. It is she, who compelled the prosecutrix to submit herself to the sexual lust of a number of persons that too for a long time when she was just fifteen years of age. It is she who stripped the prosecutrix and pushed her into a forcible marriage. The learned Magistrate appears to have tried to remain oblivious of these facts although it is she, who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix on 15.09.2017, in which the prosecutrix stated that she was subjected to rape by a battery of persons for about 20 to 22 days. The Assistant Sub. Inspector Police Station, R.S. Pura submitted his report in the bail application on 18.09.2017 i.e. four days after the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, but he did not bring it to the notice of the Court that the prosecutrix has been subjected to gang rape and the accused/respondent No. 3 has facilitated this detestable and abhorrent crime. The prosecuting officer also maintained a complete silence on this aspect in his objections filed before the Court, five days after the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded though he was the person who identified the prosecutrix before the court. 12. The prosecutrix, forsaken and forlorn, having been subjected to repeated rape as it appears from her statement has suffered at the hands of the learned Magistrate, the learned prosecuting officer and the police officer, who tendered the report before the Court. The forgetfulness of such a dastard act on their part appears to be selective. They have not cared even a fig to peep deep into the case and to report the actual occurrence before the Court. The learned Magistrate has stated in the order impugned that she has perused the application, the objections, the police report and the CD file before arriving at the conclusion that the accused/respondent No. 3 deserves to be admitted to bail. The learned Magistrate has stated in the order impugned that she has perused the application, the objections, the police report and the CD file before arriving at the conclusion that the accused/respondent No. 3 deserves to be admitted to bail. However, in case she would have turned the leafs of the CD File minutely, she would have seen and found that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by her under Section 164-A R.P.C, the prosecutrix has stated that the accused has been the co-ordinator, designer and the abettor of the commission of gruesome crime of repeated rape on her by a battery of persons. No reasons for admitting the accused to bail have been spelt out by the Ld. Magistrate except for the old aged maxims, adages and axioms of law that bail is a matter of judicial discretion provided that the offence does not prescribe the punishment of death or imprisonment of life and that grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception. An order bereft of reasons suffers from complete non-application of mind. The order impugned has been passed by the learned Magistrate in the most casual and cursory manner without looking into the gravity of the offence levelled against the accused/respondent No. 3 and without gauging the capacity of the accused/respondent No. 3 and others to influence the witnesses of the prosecution and to turn the case in their favour. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. does bring it to the bear that she was threatened into submission and subjected to beating, which lends sufficient diabolism to the offence. The learned Magistrate has failed to look into the societal concerns. She has forgotten to visualize that the sense of justice of the victim shall be shattered if the accused is released on bail. If the demands of the society and the law would have been applied in the proper perspective, a miscarriage of justice which has resulted in passing the order impugned whereby the accused/respondent No. 3 has been admitted to bail would not have occurred. 13. One of the most inhuman acts indulged in is when the animal instincts in a human take possession of him and he sexually assaults an adolescent girl, caring little what bruises he causes her bodily and psychologically. 13. One of the most inhuman acts indulged in is when the animal instincts in a human take possession of him and he sexually assaults an adolescent girl, caring little what bruises he causes her bodily and psychologically. The assault causes psychological, sexual and medical injuries to the victim with no attenuating factors to, in any way, lessen the criminal ferocity. Right from intention down to the act of crime, the intent is fully malicious. No one has come to the rescue of the ill-fated and infelicitous girl child, not even the State that has remained a mute spectator to this abominable crime. The father of the prosecutrix has been forced to move the Court when the state showed its back and buckle. A girl child belongs to all irrespective of the religion, race and caste to which she belongs. Justice has to be meted out to the victim as well. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, very recently wrote and I quote, "A child remains a child whether she is described as a street child or a surrendered child or an abandoned child or an adopted child. Similarly, a child remains a child whether she is a married child or an unmarried child or a divorced child or a separated or widowed child. At this stage we are reminded of Shakespeare's eternal view that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet so also with the status of a child, despite any prefix". 14. Looking at the nature of the offence, the ferocity of the crime, the statement of the prosecutrix, the apprehension of threat to the victim at the hands of the accused and co-accused, there was no reason to admit the accused/respondent No. 3 to bail in a crime, which has a serious magnitude and it will be a sheer abuse of the process of law, in case the order dated 21.09.2017 vide which the accused/respondent No. 3 has been admitted to bail is allowed to continue. Therefore, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the order impugned whereby the accused/respondent No. 3 has been admitted to bail, is quashed as a corollary to which, the accused/respondent No. 3 shall be taken into judicial custody by SSP Jammu, who shall file a compliance report on that count. 15. Therefore, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the order impugned whereby the accused/respondent No. 3 has been admitted to bail, is quashed as a corollary to which, the accused/respondent No. 3 shall be taken into judicial custody by SSP Jammu, who shall file a compliance report on that count. 15. Before parting, it needs must be said that the prosecuting officer and the incharge ASI Police Station R.S. Pura, have suppressed a material fact in the objections filed and the report submitted before the Court. They have not stated anywhere in the objections and the report that in her statement recorded prior in point of time, the prosecutrix has accused the respondent No. 3 of compelling her to submit herself to the sexual lust and desire of three persons, who subjected her to forcible rape for a long time. This serious lapse on their part requires a thorough probe. Therefore, it is a fit case where an inquiry should be conducted against the prosecuting officer and the ASI concerned to find their culpability. Learned Registrar (Judicial) of this wing of the High Court shall forward a copy of this order to the DGP J&K Police for conducting an inquiry into the conduct of the afore-named Officers and he shall report before this Court the result of the inquiry and action, if any, taken against them with utmost dispatch preferably within a period of four weeks. The learned Registrar (Judicial) shall lay the report before the Court immediately after it is received. 16. A copy of this order shall also be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for initiating appropriate action as deemed fit against the Judicial Magistrate concerned so that the faith of the people on the temple of justice is not shattered and eroded. 17. The record of the trial Court shall be sent down alongwith a copy of this order. This Judgment is pronounced by me in terms of Rule 138(3) of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999.