RAMESH BALARIA Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two girls, namely, Sunita Sharma and Manju Kamra who have been studying in Nehru Memorial School, Hanumangarh did not return home on the afternoon of March 17, 1988. They had left their school as usual. Ramesh Balaria, applicant no.1 is the Chairman of the Managing Committee of this school and Praveen Jain, applicant no. 2 is stated to be his friend. Since the girls did not return, Shri Deshraj, father of Manju Kamra lodged a report in Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction expressing his doubt that his daughter had been abducted by Ramesh Balaria, Praveen Jain and Raju Tanwar. He further informed the police that Manju Balaria daughter of Udaipal had delivered to him a letter written by Manju Kamra, stating that she was leaving the home. He requested that investigation be conducted and his daughter be got returned to him. Shri Kirti Sharma, who is the father of Sunita Sharma (the other girl) and who is posted at Bikaner learnt at place of his posting that her daughter was missing from his house and after withing be suspicious of Deshraj he too lodged a report in the Police Station stating that according to the information received by him from Deshraj his daughter had been abducted by above said three persons. The police started investigation in the case and the girls were recovered from Bikaner on March 20, 1988. The police recorded their statements under section 161 Cr. P.C. but the girls did not involve anyone during those statements. The girls were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, who recorded their statements under section 164 Cr. P.C. and even in those statements neither of the girls impleaded anyone. Subsequently, statement of Manju Kamra was recorded on 126th March, 1988 under section 161 Code Criminal Procedure and in that statement she stated that she and Sunita Sharma were abducted by three persons who left them after raping them. No further Statement of her was got recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. No subsequent statement of Sunita Sharma was recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. but her further statement was got recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. on 27th March, 1988 at Ganganagar and even in that statement the girl did not implicate anyone. After investigation of the case, F.I.R. was submitted by the investigating agency. Deshraj father of Manju Kamra filed protest petition and the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh has taken cognizance of the offence and had issued non bailable warrants against the applicants vide his order dated April 6, 1989. The applicants apprehending their arrest have come to this court by filing an application under section 438 Crimial P.C.

(2.) I have been read over the statements made by the girls and other witnesses and I have also perused the order by which the accused persons, including the applicants, have been summoned by the learned Magistrate. It is not disputed that the only positive evidence is that of the statements dated March 26, 1988 of Manju Kamra recorded by the police under section 161 Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate in the order in question has also referred to that statement besides making observations that the possibility of involvement of the accused cannot be ruled out because of absence of certain facts found in the medical report. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length I am of the view that it is a fit case where, in the circumstances of the case, the applicants should be granted the relief of anticipatory bail and consequently allowing the application, direct that the non bailable warrants issued against the accused should be treated as bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Officer executing the warrant/S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned and on their appearance/production before the learned Judicial Magistrate, each one of them shall be released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate on executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is made clear that applicants shall remain on bail during enquiry/trial of the case. Bail granted.