LAWS(P&H)-2012-3-391

GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 28, 2012
Gurmail Singh and another Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurmail Singh, who is father of boy, who had allegedly enticed away the daughter of the complainant, alongwith his mother, Surinder Kaur @ Sawinder Kaur, has approached this Court for grant of bail in case registered under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC. Ranjodh Singh, who is son of petitioner No. 1, has married Shivani, daughter of the complainant. This marriage is outcome of their love affair. The complainant, accordingly, had registered this FIR when his daughter had left the parental house to marry Ranjodh Singh. The present petitioners were arrested on 11.01.2012. The allegations in the FIR against them simply are that petitioner No. 2 had helped the boy and the girl to elope. The consequence is that 70 years old lady has been made to undergo custody of more than three months. The Investigating Officer, who is present, has been asked to explain as to what was the need for taking the petitioners in custody, considering the nature of allegation made against them in the FIR. This was more so in the background that boy and the girl namely Ranjodh Singh and Shivani had approached this Court for grant of protection on the ground that they had married against the wishes of parents of the girl.

(2.) This Court had issued direction to the police on 13.01.2012 to grant requisite protection to the couple. This order was received by the police station concerned on being dispatched on 16.01.2012 when the same became available. The boy and the girl are also present in the Court. They are staying as husband and wife. They have already moved this Court for quashing of this FIR.

(3.) In the background as noticed above, making 70 years old lady to undergo detention of over three months would appear very unfair and unreasonable. On query of the Court, it could be ascertained that the Investigating Officer was aware that it is not always necessary to take a person in custody for the purpose of investigation. Only where custodial interrogation is needed, the persons may be taken in custody. The police ought to show some sensitivity and spare at least old and infirm ladies. The police ought to have realized that in such like cases the main allegations, if any, would against the boy. Simply because the complainant had stated that somebody else had helped, should have prompted the police to ascertain the nature and manner of such help before acting against such old lady. It will not be for this Court to comment where and when accused person is to be taken in custody but certainly a need for taking the petitioner in custody, considering the stage and liability, apparently was not called for.