LAWS(HPH)-2018-1-116

RATTNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On January 19, 2018
Rattni Devi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner, namely, Rattni Devi, who is behind bars since 7.12.2017, has approached this Court by way of instant bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying therein for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 133/2017, dated 7.12.2017, under Sections 376 IPC and Sections 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) registered with Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 15.1.2018, ASI Sat Pal, Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. is present alongwith record. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer has also filed status report prepared by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(3.) The record/status report filed on behalf of the Investigating Agency reveals that the FIR mentioned hereinabove came to be lodged at the behest of the complainant, namely, Ram Dei, who alleged that her minor daughter was enticed and taken away in her absence by the accused, namely, Sanjeev Kumar and his father Chaman Singh on 25.9.2017. On 26.9.2017, complainant telehoned her daughter, who disclosed that she has been brought to village Kanori by accused Sanjeev Kumar and his father Chaman Singh. Since families of complainant and accused namely hereinabove were known to each other and they had also agreed for marriage of daughter of complainant with accused Sanjeev Kumar, complainant thought it not proper to register any complaint with the police against the aforesaid illegal act of Sanjeev Kumar and Chaman Singh. Allegedly, after one and half month of aforesaid incident, bail petitioner, who happened to be mother of accused Sanjeev Kumar, came to the village of the complainant alongwith coaccused Sanjeev Kumar to drop/leave the daughter of the complainant, since no one from the family of the bail petitioner and other accused came back to take daughter of the complainant, complainant made various efforts to contact bail petitioner as well as the accused but fact remains that they all refused to take daughter of complainant to their house.