news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail of kingpin under Immoral Trafficking Act | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 25(JNF): Special Municipal Mobile Magistrate Jammu Kamlesh Pandita today rejected the bail application of Shahida Parveen W/O Anil Rathore R/O Jani ur, Jammu alleged Kingpin in much publicized brothel case.
According to the police report was sought which reveals that the accused person has been arrested in case FIR No. 85/2014 u/s 376/109/506 RPC r/w 4/5 Immoral Trafficking Act. Police report further reveals that on 29.4.2014 complainant namely Rekha W/O Rinku R/O Mandal lodged a written complaint against the accused person that 10/15 days before she was taken by some unidentified lady to the house of the accused person for the domestic work to earn her livelihood. On reaching in the house of the accused person situated in Roop Nagar, Jammu she was forced by the accused person to immoral activities and was subject to rape by two unidentified persons who she could recognize when brought before her. She was threatened by the accused person of dire consequences if she disclosed anything to the outsider regarding the incident. Objections have been filed by the prosecution.
Special Municipal Magistrate Jammu Kamlesh Pandita after hearing Senior Prosecuting Officer Rohit Gupta who vehemently resisted the bail on various grounds and also scanned the contents of the C.D. file upto date. As per the record available at this stage the accused person was arrested on 21.4.2014 on the complaint of one Rekha W/O Rinku for enticing and forcing her to the illegal and immoral sex racket, at the instance of some lady conduit who could be recognized by the complainant when brought before her, in the garb of household work for earning her livelihood. But the bad luck would have it, the girl was subjected to forced sexual intercourse with two unknown persons in the well knit and architected residents/prostitution of the accused person. Record also apparently reveals that the complainant has been subject to rape with the active and intentional facilitation of the accused person to indulge in easy fortunes.
Court further observed that The law regarding bail is trite and subjected that bail is a general rule and exception to the general rule is to be resorted to any a very scarcely when the facts and circumstances of the case warrants so, and also the gravity of the offence demands so, and also when the effect of the offence on the society at large is damaging. In this case at hand though the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons do not carry the punishment of death or life sentence but the offences are of serious nature and are considered to be menace as well as threat to the development of the society at large, such offence are not taken in good taste by the prudent mind of the society, so, the personal liberty of an individual/accused person is to be balanced with the impact of the offences on the society. The accused person herself a lady has allegedly resorted to such an activity which demean the physiological development of a woman.
Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her as esteemed and dignity. The sexual on slaughter degrades and humiliates the victim. The crime of rape is not only a crime against the person or a woman which, it is a crime against the whole society. Personal liberty guaranteed to the accused is undoubtedly her valuable right guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution but same can be refused to the accused in accordance with the procedure established under law. With these observations Court rejected the bail application of the accused. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
