High Court held that petitioners summoned via Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of an improved prosecutrix statement do not require custody pending appearance for bail hearings when no recovery is needed.
Directed petitioners to submit bail bonds on the next date fixed; petitions disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-28256 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 10.11.2009
(1) Criminal Misc. No. M-28256 of 2009 (O&M)
Krishna
.. Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and another
.. Respondents
(1) Criminal Misc. No. M-29921 of 2009 (O&M)
Veero alias Beero
.. Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Eklavya Kumar, Advocate for petitioner- Krishna.
Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for petitioner-Veero alias Beero.
Mr. A. S. Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for respondent No. 2 in Criminal Misc. No. M-28256 of 2009.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions, as the same arise out of one FIR bearing No. 223 dated 17.6.2008, registered under Sections 363/366/376/120-B IPC, Police Station, Division No. 6, Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. The prosecutrix in the present case went along with Manjit Sahota on 15th /16th June, 2008 at her own will. The FIR was registered on 17.6.2008. The marriage of the prosecutrix with Manjit Sahota was solemnised on 20.6.2008 and the protection was granted by Punjab State Human Rights Commission on 25.6.2008. However, on account of non-compliance of the order
Criminal Misc. No. M-28256 of 2009 [2]
by the police, on 7.7.2008, on a raid conducted by the police, Manjit Sahota was arrested and the prosecutrix was taken into custody by the police and as per her wish was sent to Nari Niketan. On 11.7.2008, she was produced in the court, where her statement was recorded. In the aforesaid statement, she did not point any finger of accusation against the petitioners. It is only subsequent to the presentation of challan when the prosecutrix appeared in the court that she substantially improved her earlier statement and implicated the petitioners as well. On the basis thereof, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial in an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As the investigation of the case is already complete, the petitioners will face trial. As nothing is to be recovered from them, their custody is not required.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners who had played active role in the entire episode for kidnapping of the prosecutrix. Considering the fact that the crime is heinous, they do not deserve the concession of bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Petitioner-Krishna is Massi (mother's sister) of Manjit Sahota and Veero is not at all related with Manjit Sahota. The fact that there are no allegation of accusation against the petitioners in the first statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Magistrate on 11.7.2008 is not in dispute and also that the petitioners have been summoned to face trial on the basis of subsequently improved statement of the prosecutrix, in my opinion, as the petitioners have subsequently been summoned to face trial, their custody is not required.
Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall appear before the court below on the next date already fixed and submit their bail bonds.
The petitions stand disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
10.11.2009 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners who were summoned after an improved prosecutrix statement but were not named in the initial FIR require custody pending appearance.
Whether the delay in implicating petitioners necessitates their detention as they are summoned via Section 319 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna
Veero alias Beero
State of Punjab
RAJESH BINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
