CRM-M-15697-2016 and connected petitions -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-15697-2016
Kali and others
…… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…… Respondents
2. CRM-M-33586-2016
Mandu
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…… Respondents
3. CRM-M-28506-2017(OM)
Walli Mohammad
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…… Respondents
4. CRM-M-9654-2018
Munu
…… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…… Respondents
Date of decision :-7.8.2018
1 of 5
12-08-2018 12:51:45 :::
CRM-M-15697-2016 and connected petitions -:2:-
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
***
Present : Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate
for the petitioners in
CRM-M-15697-2016 CRM-M-33586-2016.
Mr.M.K. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in
CRM-M-28506-2017 CRM-M-9654-2018.
Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
Ms.Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr.Amaninder Preet, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
H.S. MADAAN, J.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of four petitions for grant of pre-
arrest bail i.e. CRM-M-15697-2016 filed by petitioners Kali wife of Salim,
Kali wife of Saif Ali and Bhago, CRM-M-33586-2016 filed by petitioner
Mandu, CRM-M-28506-2017(OM) filed by petitioner Walli Mohammad
and CRM-M-9654-2018 filed by petitioner Munu, all of them being
accused in FIR No.187 dated 30.7.2015, under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B
IPC and Section 376 IPC(added later on), registered at Police Station Tanda,
District Hoshiarpur.
Briefly stated, facts of the case as per prosecution story are that
complainant Masqeen Ali son of Jamaldeen, resident of Mohan, Police
Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, aged about 23 years had got his
statement recorded with police of Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur
on 30.7.2015 contending therein that on 13.7.2015 at about 6:30 a.m. when
2 of 5
12-08-2018 12:51:45 :::
CRM-M-15697-2016 and connected petitions -:3:-
his mother Bano along with his sisters Sakina and Meena, aged about 17
years and 14 years, respectively had gone to village Masiti for bringing the
fodder, while he was in City Tanda for selling milk; that at about 8:30 a.m.
when he returned home, his mother Bano told him that Sakina and Meena
had not returned home, then he searched for them but could not locate them;
that he expressed an apprehension that Makhandeen son of Basudeen,
resident of Masit Pal Kot, P.S. Tanda had abducted his sisters with an
intention to marry; that he along with his mother Bano, cousin Sher Ali and
Mohd.Ali went to the house of Makhandeen, where his brothers Rajadeen,
Mandu, Munu and Bashir were present; that they gave an assurance that the
two girls would be returned but that was not done. According to the
complainant, Makhandeen in connivance with his brothers Rajadeen,
Mandu, Munu and Bashir had abducted his minor sisters with an intention
of marriage by misleading them. A request was made to take action against
them. On the statement of complainant formal FIR was registered and the
investigation of the case was started. During the course of investigation
Sakina was recovered, who got her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. stating that she had solemnized Court marriage with Makhandeen
with her own consent and had accompanied him since her brother wanted to
sell her. Whereas the other sister of complainant, namely, Meena aged about
14 years was recovered from the custody of accused by Warrant Officer
appointed by this Court. Offence under Section 376 IPC was added later on
in the FIR.
Apprehending their arrest in this case, petitioners/accused had
approached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre-arrest bail but their
3 of 5
12-08-2018 12:51:45 :::
CRM-M-15697-2016 and connected petitions -:4:-
such applications were dismissed by the Court learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hoshiarpur. As such, they have approached this Court asking for
similar relief by way of filing separate petitions.
Notice of the petitions was given to the respondents, who put in
appearance through counsel.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Sakina is
still residing as a wife with Makhandeen and they had obtained protection
from this Court and the FIR is totally misuse of process of law, as such the
petitioners be granted pre-arrest bail.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that both
the prosecutrix are stated to be minor. The consent of minor is no consent in
the eyes of law. In the order passed by this Court in CRM-M-23155-2015
dated 17.7.2015 in a petition filed by Sakina and Makhandeen, no finding
with regard to validity of marriage has been given, rather petition was
disposed of directing Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to
consider the representation dated 14.7.2015 in accordance with law after
asserting the age of petitioner No.1 and threat perception to them.
Therefore, the petitioners cannot take advantage of this fact.
Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in
exceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons
from harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from
custodial interrogation.
In case of State represented by the C.B.I. Versus Anil
4 of 5
12-08-2018 12:51:45 :::
CRM-M-15697-2016 and connected petitions -:5:-
Sharma, 1997(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 268, Hon’ble Apex Court had observed
that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than
questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like this
interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting
useful informations.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is definitely required
for complete and effective investigation. In case custodial interrogation of
the petitioners is denied to the investigating agency that would leave many
loose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation being
carried out adversely which is not called for.
Thus, finding no merits in the petitions, the same stand
dismissed.
( H.S. MADAAN )
7.8.2018 JUDGE
Brij
1. Whether reportable? No
2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes
5 of 5
12-08-2018 12:51:45 :::
