news details |
|
|
| Father, Son involved committing rape on maid-servant | | Court dismissed bail application seeking anticipatory bail | |
Jammu, August, 28-:- First Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. GK Pandita, dismissed application filed by father and son namely Parsem Singh alias Natha and Varinder Singh Bhau s/o Parsem Singh r/o Village Bhau Tehsil RS Pura, who are allegedly involved committing rape upon maid-servant, seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered by RS Pura police in a rape case.
In the application for grant of anticipatory bail it has been submitted that a false and frivolous statement has been made by the prosecutrix before CJM Jammu, which has led to the registration of the case. In the application further submitted that prosecutrix was earlier working as a maid-servant in the house applicants, was turned out by them in November, 2005. After it was noticed that she was using STD telephone of the applicants and since then applicants have no link with the prosecutrix. .Mr. GK Pandita First Additional Sessions after hearing Advocate KS Johal is appearing for the applicant and Additional Public Prosecutor Harpal Singh appearing for the state and also filed objections in the case, strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the offence against the applicants is heinous and is non-bail, the investigation is at the initial stage. The offence committed by the accused is against the society. Court observed that it is on record that the CJM has recorded the statements of the prosecutrix on the direction of High Court, on a writ petition filed by the parents of prosecutrix. After statements of the prosecutrix was recorded, it was mandate of the High Court, which directed the SSP to get the case investigate through an IPS Officer. The prosecutrix in her statement before the CJM Jammu has leveled serious allegations against the applicants u/s 376 RPC. The registration of the case is not itself is end of the game. On the other hand, it is to be followed by the investigation of the case as is envisaged u/s 154 to 173 CrPC.
Court further observed the case of rape is now, considered not an offence in its ordinary nomenclature but on the other hand it is now a crime against woman, a lady who is subjected to this offence has to bear this stigma through out her life, even her relatives, close and for off are also forced to share the stigma for none of their faults. With these observations Court dismissed anticipatory bail filed by father and son.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
