Manpreet Alias Manjit Kaur And ANR. v. State Of Punjab
!" #$%$ &' ( )*
' +,-.-
-
!
"# $ %%%
-*/,0' & $ '()** + ,
- $ ./ $#0 ./1 " $ 08.12.2023 Navi Baradari, Jalandhar 363, 366 of IPC, 1860 (Sections 376, 212, 216 and 120-B of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act were added later on) 2 3 $ $ ./,
- $ 45 # $$$, , 6782262( 989 #
,45 # $4:5 # $, + $ 996 - , ,4:5 # $ + # $ - , #- $
;#$
45 + $-+ #& $ $$, , # $ # $ +< $$$, , +#-
,=
, ,# -+ , ( / $$- (>( (>> /* # , / , , &
45# ?
$- @ 2)6(262' 8>'**# + :, ,# $= , ,
$ $ :, , 123$+ , :, , $- , $+ # :, , & 18# # :, , ,
$+
=# = ,
,# $ AA
1
:, ,#B (7> 282 28> # 82603/* 'B*B # $& , #-& , $ 0 $$ $ :
, :$# #
8769262' ' The present petition has been filed by the petitioners on the grounds and it is argued by their counsel that the petitioners who are the wife and father respectively, of accused :, Singh have been falsely implicated in this case. They were not named in the FIR. Their names were disclosed by the victim after three months of the registration of the FIR in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Infact, the victim has again absconded with the accused Mandeep @ Deepu, during the investigation of this case and she has even been sharing her photographs on social media. It is submitted that no recovery is to be effected from them. Their custodial interrogation is not required. They are ready to join the investigation. Therefore, it is urged that they deserve to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail.
5.
Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant at this stage and has filed his Vakalatnama. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the petitioners as they harboured the co-accused Mandeep and ensured his concealment in
their house, while knowing that he had kidnapped the victim and his apprehension had been ordered. They also facilitated commission of offence of penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim by the accused Deepu @ Mandeep. Their custodial interrogation is required for thorough investigation of the matter by the police. The victim has again been taken away by the coaccused and a separate report has been lodged in this regard. She is yet to be recovered and the co-accused Deepu is yet to be arrested. There are chances of the petitioners tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. Therefore, it is argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters for grant of pre-arrest bail in a celebrated pronouncement cited as "Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others : 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 126", by making the following observations: "122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail : i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object
2 of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
123. The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case." 7.
The allegations against the petitioners are that they gave shelter to the co-accused Mandeep @ Deepu who after enticing away and inducing the minor victim brought her to their house and while knowing fully well
that he was an offender they not only helped him in keeping her confined in their house for a period of about one month but also facilitated the commission of offence of penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim by the co-accused. The allegations against the petitioners are grave in nature. In my considered opinion, for conducting thorough investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. &#$$ $ $# # $ ,$ ,
- $ * $ $ +$ $ ,
, ,# $ ,
,# $ , ?
$ $- $
?
, # #$$ # $ '()**- $ , $ , / $ ,,0 $ & # '() ** = = - ,
, # / = - ,
$ , + 0 $ $ , ?
, ,
-$ ,$-
) / $ $$ =
C
,$
- 3
-4 ( )*