Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Kaur @ Meeto vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 2010
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-17407 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: July 20, 2010
Manjeet Kaur @ Meeto .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.A.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab
..
RAJAN GUPTA, J.:
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 376, 120-B IPC at Police Station Goraya District Jalandhar vide FIR No.57 dated 20.5.2010.
The FIR was registered on the statement of Seema, daughter of Kishan Lal. She stated that her father used to remain ill and her mother would run the household expenses by doing labour work. They came to know that one Jeet Singh, son of Mehnga Singh treated people by tantrik method. They contacted the said person for treatment of Kishan Lal. Jeet Singh developed family relations with the prosecutrix's family and started visiting their house in 2002. Father of the prosecutrix died in the year 2002 and due to that her mother lapsed into depression. Taking advantage of this, Jeet Singh, who is known as Baba Jeet Singh, exploited the prosecutrix. He committed rape on her Crl.Misc.No.M-17407 of 2010 - 2 - by instilling fear in her mind that her brother would die in case some rituals were not done.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner being a woman could not be arraigned as accused under Section 376 IPC. He has relied upon a judgment of the apex court reported as State of Rajasthan vs. Hemraj and Anr., 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 356, in support of his contention. He has further contended that there has been a compromise between the parties and thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. He further submits that in cases of compromise, even FIRs are normally quashed by the High Court.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of having conspired with Baba Jeet Singh in the commission of crime. According to him, investigation has revealed that she played an active role in helping the Baba to take the prosecutrix to Rurka Khurd where she was subjected to rape by the Baba. He submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., has ascribed a clear-cut role to the petitioner. Learned State counsel submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to take the investigation to its logical end.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
I am of the considered view that reliance placed by the petitioner's counsel on judgment in Hamraj's case Crl.Misc.No.M-17407 of 2010 - 3 - (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, it was held when rape was committed by a group of persons which included a woman, the woman could not be held guilty of offence of rape. The said case was a case of gang rape under section 376(2)(g) IPC. However, there is no such allegation in the instant case. Petitioner is accused of conspiring with Baba Jeet Singh for commission of rape on the prosecutrix. Thus, ratio of the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case.
The plea that there is a compromise between the parties and same should be taken into consideration at the stage of consideration of pre-arrest bail, is without any merit. The allegations in the FIR are serious, as petitioner is stated to have conspired with Baba Jeet Singh in the commission of crime on a destitute girl. After coming to know that father of the prosecutrix had died and mother was under depression, the petitioner and Baba Jeet Singh went to house of prosecutrix on the pretext that there was some evil spirit in their house for which some prayer was required to be done in the cremation ground. They told the mother of the prosecutrix that for the purpose of offering prayer, prosecutrix was required. They thereafter, took the prosecutrix with them to village Rurka Khurd and told her that in case ritual/treatment was not done, her brother would die. The prosecutrix was physically exploited thereafter.
Keeping in view the nature of allegations, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to Crl.Misc.No.M-17407 of 2010 - 4 - concession of pre-arrest bail. The plea that compromise between the parties should be taken into consideration is without any merit. This plea has also been opposed by learned State counsel. He has produced in court a copy of statement of prosecutrix which was recorded by the investigating agency under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The relevant part thereof reads as under:-
"Thereafter my mother sent me to village Rurka Khurd along with Baba Jeet Singh and his wife Manjeet Kaur. After that, Baba Jeet Singh told me that he would have to make models of ghosts with flour dough. Baba Jeet Singh then committed wrong act with me at his house and forcibly made me drink liquor and threatened me that in case I did not consumer liquor, my brother would be killed. This Baba Jeet Singh kept me in his house and used to commit bad act with me in front of his wife Manjeet Kaur. After 6/7 months my mother took me back to house in Ludhiana."
In view of statement aforesaid, seriousness of allegations and nature of crime, I find that there is no ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The prayer is, thus, rejected and petition is hereby dismissed.
July 20, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE