Salman And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another
!" !#"$%&'%(%% % %) % ) *+, -
.#/01
!% !2&3 4 $"4
% 4%&% %
!
"
#
$% &&& % 4%&% %1$5!%36 '
()*# #
+! ,-. /0 -.$ 1 21.07.2022 Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran 363, 366, 366-A and later on added Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of POCSO Act %
-./
!
,
34 /
on 21.07.2022 alleging therein that his daughter 'P' /
aged about 16-17 years had been found missing in the morning of 18/19.07.2022. He had
made search for her but could not find her. He alleged that the petitioner No.1 who is their relative and already married, used to visit his house and was keeping an evil eye on his daughter. He further alleged that in this regard, complaint was already made to family members of petitioner No.1 and objections had been raised. He raised suspicion that his daughter had been enticed away by the petitioner. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The prosecutrix was recovered on 22.07.2022. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 02.08.2022 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti wherein she alleged that petitioner No.1 had enticed her away on pretext of marrying her at Jalandhar and by representing that he would transfer a house in her name.
She alleged that after reaching Jalandhar, she was taken to a house where 4-5 friends of petitioner No.1 were already present. Petitioner No.1 had tried to commit forcible act with her. She further alleged that on the next day, petitioners NO. 2 and 3, who are parents of petitioner No.1 had reached there and took her to different saints and also to different villages. She also alleged that her uncle Bobby and maternal uncle of petitioner No.1 accompanied them and on 22.07.2022, they had called the maternal uncle of her father who had taken her custody from the petitioners. She also alleged that petitioner No.1 had committed forcible act with her. Offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act were added. Investigation is going on.
The petitioners had filed application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned ASJ on 22.02.2023, but the same were dismissed. 3.
The present petition has been jointly filed by the petitioners and
it is argued by their counsel that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners No. 2 and 3 had nothing to do with the matter. They have been living separately from petitioner No.1 in some other house. The respondent No.2 i.e. victim had left her house at her own as her parents wanted to solemnize her marriage forcibly against her wishes with some other boy. She had come to petitioner No.1. Apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had filed a petition before Co-ordinate Bench which was decided on 22.02.2023. In fact the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were happily staying in a live-inrelationship. Now the respondent No.2 even attained the age of majority and had sworn an affidavit (Annexure P-4) to the effect that she had left her father's house at her own will. The petitioners are ready to join investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required neither. It has been urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4.
On the other hand, the respondent-State has filed status report, by refuting the submissions as made in the petition and by alleging that there were serious and specific allegations against the petitioners. It is argued by learned State counsel that the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were nominated on the basis of statement of the prosecutrix. The petitioners have committed a heinous crime and their custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, it has been urged that they do not deserve to be given concession of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that since the victim had performed marriage with petitioner No.1 and living with him, hence, she has no objection if the application is allowed.
5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6.
As per the allegations, petitioner No.1 had enticed away the prosecutrix in the intervening night of 18/19.07.2022, who was minor at that time on the pretext of marrying her and had taken her to Jalandhar wherein she was kept in a house. As per the further allegations, he had tried to do bad act with her. So far as the petitioners No. 2 and 3, parents of petitioner No.1 are concerned, the allegations against them are that next day after the victim had been taken to Jalandhar, they had reached there and had then taken her to some Babas and several other places and then on 22.07.2022 they had given information about her to her father and her maternal uncle had taken her back. It is neither alleged in the FIR nor from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
, it is revealed that she was enticed away and taken out from the guardianship of her parents by the petitioner No.1 in connivance with petitioners No.2 and 3 and they were amongst the persons who had induced her to marry with petitioner No.1 or had facilitated, intentionally aided or instigated the petitioner No.1 to ravish her or further that the petitioner No.1 had committed rape upon her in their presence, with their connivance or any intentional aid being given by them. No doubt as per the statement of the prosecutrix, on 20.07.2022, petitioners No. 2 and 3 had gone to the place where she was kept by petitioner No.
have been made out as against petitioners No. 2 and 3, nor it is made out that they had abetted the commission of either of the aforementioned offences. Rather, as stated by her, it were petitioners No. 2 and 3 who had informed her family to take her back. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the custodial interrogation of petitioners No. 2 and 3 is not required and no useful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody. With these observations, I allow the prayer as made by petitioners No. 2 and 3 for grant of pre-arrest bail. It is ordered accordingly and they are ordered to be admitted to anticipatory bail subject to their surrendering before the Investigating Officer within a period of one week and joining the investigation within that period and even subsequently as and when required till the conclusion of the investigation and subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate and further subject to compliance of other provisions of Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. 7.
However, so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned there are serious and specific allegations against him qua not only of enticing away a minor girl on the pretext of performing marriage with her but also of ravishing her. 5
+ !
,! /
!
'
6
0(
/ ,
$%
,
7
, #
. /
/ /
()*# #
!,
'
0
!
+ ,
. +
,
!
,
# .,
!
!
7
! , / /
!
!
0
$80 !,
7
$80 * $
!
/
,
!
, 7% 4%&% %8 $")
.#/01