news details |
|
|
| HC quashes bail in minor's kidnapping, rape case | | Directs for inquiry against PO, IO; action against Judicial Officer | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 18: In a petition seeking quashing of bail order of Masooma Bibi in a case of minor's kidnapping, Justice M K Hanjura of High Court quashed the order of bail passed by 1st Class Judicial Magistrate RS Pura, with the direction to SSP Jammu to take custody of the accused.
Justice Hanjura also directed the Registry to place the order before the Chief Justice for initiating appropriate action as deemed fit against the Judicial Magistrate concerned so that the faith of the people on the temple of justice is not shattered and eroded.
Before parting the judge observed that prosecuting officer and the in-charge ASI Police Station R.S. Pura, have suppressed a material fact in the objections filed and the report submitted before the Court. They have not stated anywhere in the objections and the report that in her statement recorded prior in point of time, the prosecutrix has accused the respondent No.3 of compelling her to submit herself to the sexual lust and desire of three persons, who subjected her to forcible rape for a long time. This serious lapse on their part requires a thorough probe. Therefore, it is a fit case where an inquiry should be conducted against the prosecuting officer and the ASI Ghulam Nabi concerned to find their culpability.
Justice Hanjura directed Registrar (Judicial) to forward a copy of the order to the DGP J&K Police for conducting an inquiry into the conduct of the afore-named officers and he shall report before this Court the result of the inquiry and action, if any, taken against them with utmost dispatch preferably within a period of four weeks. The Registrar (Judicial) shall lay the report before the Court immediately after it is received.
The judge after hearing both the sides observed that elaborate documentation is not required to be made in the bail application, but the law provides that while dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused is charged of having committed a serious offence.
The judge observed that no reason for admitting the accused to bail have been spelt out by the magistrate except for the old aged maxims, adages and axioms of law that bail is a matter of judicial discretion provided that the offence does not prescribe the punishment of death or imprisonment of life and that grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception. An order bereft of reasons suffers from complete non-application of mind. He said the order impugned has been passed by the magistrate in the most casual and cursory manner without looking into the gravity of the offence leveled against the accused and without gauging the capacity of the accused and others to influence the witnesses of the prosecution and to turn the case in their favour.
Justice Hanjura observed that looking at the nature of the offence, the ferocity of the crime, the statement of the prosecutrix, the apprehension of threat to the victim at the hands of the accused and co-accused, there was no reason to admit the accused to bail in a crime, which has a serious magnitude and it will be a sheer abuse of the process of law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
