The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta refused to grant bail to a woman’s mother and grandmother accused of abducting and attacking the woman and her newly wed husband and chopping off his private parts. (Naina Rana V. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) and other connected matters).
The bench taking note of the facts of the case observed that questions of faith have no bearing on an individual’s freedom to choose a life partner and that this freedom is an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that wherever life and liberty of a person is concerned in cases of couples legally marrying, the police are expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity and take necessary measures for their protection and safety.
Facts of the case
Three separate applications were preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 356/367/368/326/307/506/120B/34 I.P.C.
An FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of injured/victim Raman, who had married Menka (another victim/injured) against the consent of her parents. However, family members of the wife of the complainant abducted Raman and his wife Menka and after brutally beating him up, his private part was amputated with an axe. Also stab injuries were inflicted. Further, the complainant was thrown in a drain from where he was rescued by his brother and was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is the sister of Menka and was not named in the FIR. Further, no specific allegations have been made against her. It was also submitted that at the time of producing the petitioner before the concerned Court, the complainant stated that she has no objection if bail is granted to the applicants - Naina Rana and Kajal Rana. It was further submitted that no injury was inflicted by the present petitioner. It was urged that the charge-sheet was filed against two of the co-accused namely Anil Mala and Aasha Mala, who are similarly placed, without being arrested. Petitioner Naina Rana is further claimed to have clean antecedents.
So far as the petitioner Kaushalya is concerned, it was submitted by the learned counsel that she is old lady aged about 86 years and is suffering from various ailments. It is further submitted that the 42 cases stated to be pending against her are under Excise Act and some of them are still pending trial.
Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail applications. It was submitted that so far as the petitioner-Kaushalya is concerned, she is a habitual offender and has been involved in about 42 criminal cases. It was further submitted that Kaushyalya exhorted the other members of the family of Menka for amputating the private part of the complainant/Raman. It was further submitted that so far as the petitioner Naina Rana is concerned, though no overt act appears to have been attributed to her, but steps were not taken by her for protecting both the victims. Lastly, it was submitted that considering the past antecedents of the petitioners- Geeta and Kaushalya and their close relationship with the complainant/victim Menka, possibility of influencing the material witnesses at their behest cannot be ruled out, if they are released on bail by this Court.
Courts observation & Order
The bench at the very outset observed, “It may be noticed that so far as the petitioner – Naina Rana (sister of victim Menka) is concerned, no active role appears to have been attributed to her. However, so far as the petitioners – Geeta (mother of Menka) and Kaushalya (grandmother of Menka) are concerned, both of them are alleged to have participated in assault and also exhorted family members for amputation of private part of the complainant. It also cannot be ignored that both petitioners- Geeta and Kaushalya have criminal antecedents and petitioner- Geeta in fact was declared as a proclaimed offender (P.O) during the initial stages of the proceedings.”
The bench remarked, “In the facts and circumstances, considering the grave nature of offence, ghastly manner in which the assault was made and considering their role in the incident, no grounds for bail are made out in respect of petitioner/accused Geeta and Kaushalya.
However, since no active role appears to have been attributed to petitioner- Naina Rana, she is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.”
The bench dismissing the bail application remarked, “The freedom of choice in marriage in accordance with law is an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even the questions of faith have no bearing on an individual’s freedom to choose a life partner and are essence of personal liberty. In view of above, wherever the life and liberty of any individual is concerned, especially in cases of couples legally marrying out of their own freewill and volition, the police is expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity in accordance with law and take necessary measures for protection and safety of applicants concerned, if they apprehend hostility and concerns for their safety from different quarters including their own family members.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :