Sukhpal Kaur vs State of Punjab

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitionercomplainant has filed this petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated 1.10.1997.

Brief facts of the case are that on 3.9.1997 at 1.00 P.M., petitioner was admitted in a private hospital run by respondent No. 2 at Talwandi Sabo. At that time she was having pregnancy of six months and was complaining of bleeding. On the night of 3.9.1997 accusedrespondent No. 2 forcibly raped her and whisked away from her room. On 4.9.1997, petitioner was removed to Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo where she was examined by the Doctor. On 4.9.1997 at 2.10 P.M., petitioner''s statement was recorded on the basis of which offence under Section 376 IPC was registered against the respondent accused. On 4.9.1997, petitioner was admitted in Primary Health Centre, Talwandi Sabo. The Doctor opined that it is a mishandled case of incomplete abortion. Due to her deteriorating condition, she was referred to Civil Hospital, Bhatinda at 3.30 P.M. for further treatment. She alleged that due to rape committed on her by the accusedrespondent, her six months pregnancy was terminated and the dead foetus was expelled from her body at 8.00 a.m. on 5.9.1997. She was discharged from the Hospital on 9.9.1997. Respondent accused was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 1.10.1997.

Petitioner has also averred that respondentaccused had been threatening the petitioner with dire consequences if she would not compromise with him. On few occasions he threatened her and her husband as well to kill them if they move the higher Court against him. Therefore, petitioner apprehends that because of the threats it is difficult for her to move out in the village or to depose in the Court freely. Thus according to her, respondentaccused is misusing the concession of bail. Hence, it is prayed that his bail be cancelled and he should be taken in custody.

Respondentaccused has filed reply and has denied all these allegations. He has also produced certain documents, Annexures R/1 to R/5 to show that the story of rape is palpably false. He has also pleaded that Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, DSP (D) has held an enquiry to find out whether the complaint lodged against the accusedrespondent is false or not.

When bail petition of respondentaccused was under consideration, the learned Sessions Judge heard his Counsel as well as the State counsel and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, he granted bail to accusedrespondent observing that from the facts of the case it appears that it may be a case of outraging the modesty of the complainant.

Petitioner''s learned counsel submitted that when petitioner was admitted in the private hospital run by the respondentaccused at Talwandi Sabo on 3.9.1997 though she was bleeding and was having six months'' pregnancy but taking advantage of her loneliness in her room in the Hospital, accused respondent forcibly raped her and when she shouted, her other relations knocked at the door, the accusedrespondent slipped away. Thereafter on 4.9.1997, petitioner was removed to Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo where Doctor examined her at 2.10 P.M. She lodged the F.I.R. which is reproduced in the petition. Police registered a case under Section 376 IPC against the respondentaccused. Because of this rape, finally her pregnancy was terminated.

Petitioner''s counsel also argued that considering the seriousness of the allegations made against the respondentaccused, learned Sessions Judge should not have enlarged the accusedrespondent on bail on 1.10.1997 when even investigation was going on. He also pointed out that after being released on bail, respondentaccused is misusing the concession of bail as he threatened the petitioner as well as her husband that they should enter into compromise with him and should not move the higher Court against him otherwise they will be eliminated. On these grounds, the learned counsel submits that bail granted to accusedrespondent be cancelled.

Learned counsel appearing for respondentaccused submitted that on his request enquiry was initiated by S.S.P. regarding his false implication in this case and Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, DSP (D) was assigned that enquiry. Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma has concluded the enquiry. Therefore, he prays that prosecution be directed to place on record that enquiry report. He also referred to various documents which the respondentaccused has filed along with his reply. He referred to Annexure R/1 wherein Dr. Ramesh Rani Thukral has appended a note that when the petitioner came with 41/2 months'' pregnancy with excessive bleeding condition at the time of her admission, since she was bleeding excessively, it was not possible to come to any definite opinion about the rape. In Annexure R/3 Daljit Bakhshi has put a note that Medico legal was not done at Talwandi Sabo as Sukhpal Kaur (petitioner) never told the attending doctors about rape. He also produced identical note, Annexure R/4, which is signed by Dr. R.R. Thukral, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhatinda on 1.1.1998 wherein also it is specifically mentioned that at the time of admission and during her stay, the petitioner never gave the history of any rape. Even in the referral slip from Primary Health Centre, Talwandi Sabo, the fact of rape was not mentioned. Thereby she opined that abortion can be done due to other causes.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that despite the enquiry report submitted by Brij Mohan Sharma, challan is presented in the Court and charge was framed against the respondentaccused on 12.2.1998. Now, the case is fixed for recording prosecution evidence on 5.5.1998.

After hearing rival contentions, in my considered view, there is no ground to allow the petition. Prosecutrix has alleged that she was ravished by the accused respondent on 3.9.1997 at night time. During night she was in the private hospital of the accusedrespondent along with her husband, fatherin law and other relations. At that time no hue and cry was raised. She was discharged from the hospital on 4.9.1997. Even thereafter report was not lodged. She was admitted in Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo, where she was medically examined but no report about the commission of this offence could be given by the Doctor as she was bleeding profusely. On 4.9.1997 at 2.10 P.M. she lodged this F.I.R. From the documents, Annexures R/1, R/3 and R/4, it is evident that at the time of admission in the Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo, it could not be said that it was a case of rape and no medicolegal examination was done at Talwandi Sabo as the prosecutrix never told that she was raped. Note appended in Annexure R/4 is the report sent to Jagjit Singh, I.O. of this case by Doctor R.R. Thukral, Medial Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhatinda. In this note, Dr. Thukral has specifically mentioned that at the time of her admission and during her stay in the hospital, the prosecutrix never gave the history of rape. Even in the referral slip from the Primary Health Centre, Talwandi Sabo, there was no mention of rape or of any M.L.R. conducted at Primary Health Centre, Talwandi Sabo. Hence, she opined that there may be other causes for her abortion.

Whether these facts would mitigate the charge of rape is a question of fact which is yet to be determined by the trial Magistrate. At this stage it is not proper to comment on these facts. But if considering these facts, the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accusedrespondent, it cannot be said that the discretion was not properly exercised.

Further, there are different considerations when a petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is to be considered. As per the Apex Court''s observations in `Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana'', (1995) 1 SCC 349, generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

In this case, petitioner has made vague allegations about the oral threats given to her and to her husband. Neither any date, place or any other detail is mentioned therein with regard to such threats. There is no mention that she made such a complaint to the Investigating Officer or to the Court or any other authority with regard to the aforementioned objected conduct of the accusedrespondent. Had it been so, she would have approached any authority complaining of such threats or she would have lodged any report with the Police but no such attempt was made by her. Vague allegations about such threats can be made at any time when such an application is made by the complainant. But while deciding such a petition, the Court has to weigh and appreciate such allegations in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case.

In my considered view, the allegations are vague and no weight can be attached to them.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, it is hereby dismissed.