STATE OF M P Vs. PREMPURI GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under sub -section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed seeking cancellation of order of bail, passed by Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, on 31 -10 -2001, wherein, each of the applicants is ordered to be released in connection with Crime No. 261/2001 of Police Station, Lordganj, Dist. Jabalpur, which pertains to offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376/34 of the IPC.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, on 9th of May, 2001, Dev Singh Thakur lodged a Gum Insan report at Police Station, Lordganj, alleging that his minor daughter Ku. Vandana Thakur is not traceable. On enquiry, it was stated by the witnesses that Ku. Vandana has been taken away by the respondents, under the pretext of marrying her. It was also stated by the witnesses that Dev Singh Thakur purchased a house in Lordganj area and after release from jail, respondent No. 1 started threatening him. Thereafter, respondent No. 1, who had a criminal background, developed good relations with Dev Singh Thakur and under the garb of friendship, he started persuing Ku. Vandana, a minor, to marry him. It is under these circumstances that the respondent No. 1 managed to kidnap Vandana on 8th May, 2001. On the basis of aforesaid enquiry, Crime No. 261/2001 stood registered against the respondents at Police Station, Lordganj, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376/34 of the IPC.

(3.) ON 11th August, 2001, respondent No. 2 was taken into custody and on 20th August, 2001, respondent No. 1 surrendered before the Court of Shri A.K. Chaturvedi, IInd Addl Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The first bail application of respondent No. 1 was opposed on the ground that he is a noted criminal with 33 criminal cases to his credit and on four occasions, he was detained under the National Security Act. A copy of objection petition is marked as Annexure A -1. The first bail application of respondent No. 1 stood rejected. The second bail application moved on behalf of respondent No. 1 was also objected in writing, pointing out his criminal background and the fact that respondent No. 1 has an adjoining house to the house of father of Ku. Vandana Thakur. A copy of this objection petition is marked as Annexure A -2. The second bail application of respondent No. 1 also stood rejected. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 submitted the third bail application and respondent No. 2 filed his first bail application. This third bail application of respondent No. 1 was objected mentioning the fact of pendency of Habeas Corpus petition and the criminal background of respondent No. 1. A copy of this written objection is marked as Annexure A -3. The chart showing the criminal cases registered against respondent No. 1 is marked as Annexure A -4 and the chart of criminal cases registered against respondent No. 2 is filed as Annexure A -5. The photocopy of order dated 8th February, 2002, passed by this Court in Habeus Corpus Petition No. 3730/2001, is marked as Annexure A -6. The learned IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, granted bail to these respondents on 31 -10 -2001, without taking into account their criminal records aforesaid important facts and merely on the ground of completion of important part of the investigation, which is liable to be cancelled.