news details |
|
|
| Woman Harassed and Torture for Dowry | | Court rejected anticipatory bail applications of Husband and Others | |
Jammu, November, 3:- Second Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. AK Koul dismissed anticipatory bail application filed by the Husband of victim and other members of In-laws in much publicized case of Village Mota Tehsil R S Pora.
In the dismissal order Mr. AK Koul after hearing Advocate K S Johal appearing for the petitioners and Additional Public Prosecutor Ravinder Sharma appearing for the state observed that the controversy has stemmed from the matrimonial discord between Manmohan Singh and his wife Sunita Kumari, so many FIRs appear to have been lodged from either side. The petitioners Sewa Singh, Manmohan Singh, Pritam Kour and Bhupinder Singh all residents of Village Mota Tehsil R S Pura alleged that they are being harassed by the influential complainant party and at the same time, the complainant party is up in arms against the petitioners that they have kidnapped a minor girl and are also involved in commission section 498-A RPC (cruelty). The details of accusations against the petitioners are known, now and so the petitioners can safely approach a regular court for bail. A case of domestic violence cannot be treated at par with an ordinary crime, in a society where crime against women shows a rising trend. The petitioners are alleged to have harassed/torture the wife of petitioner Manmohan Singh for dowry and this aspect cannot be overlooked more particularly at this stage of the case.
Mr. AK Koul Second Additional Sessions Judge Jammu after considering the report of the police held that the investigation of the case is in infancy and nature of accusation against the petitioners, reveals that petitioners arrest is stated to be necessary so that investigation can be taken to logical and custodial interrogation as law believes is important to ascertain the facts. A young baby is stated to have been kidnapped which is yet to be recovered and giving the concession of anticipatory bail to petitioners in view of the Court, defeat the very purpose of law. The court believe that this case does not qualify for grant of anticipatory bail in view of factual conspectus of the matter, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners would means frustrating the investigation, which has just started. This petition is dismissed; the petitioners are, however, at liberty to approach a competent court for regular bail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
