SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kali And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 7 August, 2018

CRM-M-15697-2016 and connected petitions -:1:-


1. CRM-M-15697-2016

Kali and others
…… Petitioners


State of Punjab and another
…… Respondents

2. CRM-M-33586-2016

…… Petitioner


State of Punjab and another
…… Respondents

3. CRM-M-28506-2017(OM)

Walli Mohammad
…… Petitioner


State of Punjab and another
…… Respondents

4. CRM-M-9654-2018

…… Petitioner


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:-



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.


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


7.8.2018 JUDGE
1. Whether reportable? No

2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes

5 of 5
12-08-2018 12:51:45 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation