SHAHDIN Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed, under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in quashing the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class R. S. Pura, Jammu, whereby the respondent No. 3, Masooma Bibi, has been admitted to bail for the commission of offences under Sections 363/109 RPC.

(2.) This case reflects a sad and a sordid state of affairs. The fences appear to have swollen the crops. Law has been made lame by the very persons, who were supposed to interpret, execute and implement it. It has been made to limp by those designed and entrusted with the task of protecting the life and limb of the citizens of the State. The learned Magistrate appears to have acted in the most cavalier, casual and perfunctory manner in dealing with the application for admitting Masooma Bibi to bail. The prosecuting officer, who has filed the objections and the ASI Police Station R. S. Pura who has submitted the report in the application for enlarging the accused/respondent No. 3 to bail, have suppressed the material facts, perhaps, deliberately in order to facilitate the exit of the accused/respondent No. 3 from the clutches of the law. All the three i.e. the learned Magistrate Ist Class R.S. Pura, the prosecuting officer and the ASI Police Station R. S. Pura appear to have worked in tandem to deny Justice to a hapless girl victimised and exploited sexually.

(3.) The facts are eloquent. On 14.09.2017, the accused/respondent No. 3 moved an application before the learned Magistrate Ist Class R.S. Pura for admitting her to bail in FIR No. 189/2017 of Police Station R.S. Pura for the commission of offences under Sections 363/109 RPC, on a complaint of the petitioner that his daughter has been kidnapped. The Assistant Sub. Inspector R. S. Pura prepared and submitted a report before the learned Magistrate Ist Class R.S. Pura on 18.09.2017. The prosecuting officer filed his objections to the application of the accused on 19.09.2017. The statement of the prosecutrix, (name withheld) as envisaged and envisioned under Section 164-A Cr.P.C was recorded on 15.09.2017 by the very Magistrate, who admitted the accused/respondent No. 3 to bail by an order dated 21.09.2017, which is impugned here in this petition.