RAKESH Vs. IQBAL MASIH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Rakesh alias Baba and Kali who are distinctly described in a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, along with another five accused, are alleged to have kidnapped and raped one Sunita alias Anita, a student of 10th class from her school on 8.1.1994, who conceived and again petitioner No. 1 in the company of other two accused took her forcibly on 21.5.1994 in a Maruti van to a private doctor to get her aborted as a result of which she developed multiple micro absess in the wall of uterus which resulted into her death. The deceased happened to be the daughter of complainant Iqbal Masih who is working as peon in the Central Jail, Gurdaspur. The said Iqbal Masih purchased a plot from the father of Neetu accused and was living in that house as a result of which the other accused who were friends of said Neetu were free visitors to his house and therefore the said deceased was known to them.

(2.) THE deceased did not reveal this matter to her parents and neither any body had a knowledge about it. When ultimately the deceased developed pain in her body and was bleeding while the accused got her aborted by some private doctor may be a quack then they took her to the hospital where she died. The report of the doctor was that she had developed micro absess in the wall of uterus and that caused her death.

(3.) IT is a serious case of rape and kidnaping in which the primary accused is petitioner No. 1 Rakesh who has managed to take her away and commit rape on her. He also got her aborted upon by a unknown doctor as a result of which she developed some serious trouble in her uterus which resulted into her death. The accused have been summoned by the Magistrate after recording the pre-charge evidence and he has prima facie found that they are connected with the commission of the crime. As the accused are involved for a serious offence of rape and kidnaping which has also resulted in the death of victim, therefore, no leniency can be shown to them and they are not entitled to bail in anticipation. Hence this petition is dismissed.