NISHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NISHA and Rekha seek regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 362 dated 6.12.2011at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula for an offence punishable under sections 365 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5.12.2011, Meena wife of Gajraj delivered a male child at General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. In the night, the child was with Meena and the complainant as well as others were there. At about 1.00 AM, two women came there out of whom one was aged about 30 years having fair complexion and the other was about 18/20 years old. THE elder woman sat near Meena and the younger one took seat on the bench lying outside the general ward. THE complainant took the child from Meena and came out of the ward. THE said elder woman also came out of the ward. She wanted the child to be given to her for playing with the child. Complainant gave the child to her. After sometime that woman told the complainant about her intention to go to the bathroom and she asked the complainant to accompany her to the bathroom because she did not know about the direction in which the bathroom was located. She gave the new born to the younger woman accompanying her and started towards the bathroom with the complainant. THEreafter she took the complainant to the canteen of the hospital and therefrom she told the complainant to go back because she wanted to bring money from her car for making payment. When the complainant reached the ward, she found the younger woman missing with the child. THEreafter the matter was reported to the police. After that SI Balwant Singh reached the hospital on coming to know about the disappearance of the child from the hospital and ultimately, the child has been recovered from Patiala from the in-laws of petitioner No.1.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the story is totally unbelievable. According to him, no such events could take place in the sequence as has been claimed in the FIR. LEARNED State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the child was located with a lot of difficulty because the police did not have any clue. According to him, the calls made through the various towers were examined and after shortlisting the suspicious calls, the holders of those phones were followed and recovery was made. He has further submitted that there is no reason to say that the petitioners are not involved in the crime.