SEEMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.12, dated 27.1.2012, under Sections 363, 376, 342, 506, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that it is a case kidnapping and committing rape upon the prosecutrix. Statement was given by prosecutrix before the Magistrate on the basis of which the present FIR was lodged on the directions of the Magistrate. As per allegations made by the prosecutrix, she was called by her uncle and co-accused Pappu at his shop where co-accused Soma and petitioner-accused Seema were also sitting. Petitioner-accused gave a glass of water to her to drink and after that she become unconscious. She was locked in a room by petitioner- accused and thereafter rape was committed upon her by co-accused Soma, Pappu and Babbu. She was kept there for 3-4 days under the influence of intoxicants. Thereafter she was taken to Ladi Gadiyan Wala, where Ladi- co-accused also committed rape upon her. Thereafter present petitioner- accused put her chunni around her neck and tried to strangulate her. After that petitioner-accused took the prosecutrix to Jalandhar. She was also accompanied by co-accused Soma and from there petitioner-accused had taken her to Hawara Station, Kolkata. She was left there in some jhuggi and nobody was allowed to meet her. However, some blast had taken place in that area and hence, every-body ran away and hence, she reached the station in a bad condition. She was not even able to speak. She told the story in writing to the police. Her father was called. Her treatment was going on in Jagadhri. She of her own appeared before Illaqa Magistrate and gave her statement on the basis of which the present FIR was lodged on the directions of the Illaqa Magistrate.

(2.) IT has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that earlier complaint regarding missing of prosecutrix was given by her mother to the police in which suspicion was raised on one Suraj and that matter was duly enquired into and statement of present petitioner was also recorded, in which she stated that prosecutrix had gone with her free consent with Suraj and that she is major, having one son and that she was earlier married. It is further contended that on enquiry the complaint was filed. Further submitted that as a counter-blast the present false report has been lodged by the prosecutrix against petitioner and co- accused.

(3.) HENCE , in view of serious allegations against petitioner- accused, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to her. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Seema for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.