The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Naina Rana vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) consisting of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that the questions of faith have no bearing on an individual’s freedom to choose a life partner and are essence of personal liberty.
Facts
Three separate applications were preferred by the petitioners u/s 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail in FIR u/s 356/367/368/326/307/506/120B/34 IPC 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.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that no specific allegations were made against the applicants (Naina and Kajal Rana). It was also contended that no injury was inflicted by the present petitioner. It was contended on behalf of petitioner-Geeta (Menka’s mother) that the only role attributed to her was of exhortation. It was also contended on behalf of petitioner-Kaushalya that she is old lady aged about 86 years suffering from various ailments with 42 cases stated to be pending against her under Excise Act.
Respondent: It was contended that Kaushalya and Geeta exhorted the other members of the family of Menka for amputating the private part of the complainant/Raman. It was also contended that considering the past antecedents of the petitioners- Geeta and Kaushalya and their close relationship with Menka, possibility of influencing the material witnesses at their behest could not be ruled out, if they were released on bail.
Observations of the Court
The Bench opined that 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 were made out in respect of petitioner/accused Geeta and Kaushalya.
It also observed that 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. So, 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. Any lapse cannot be accepted on behalf of the police.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that since no active role was attributed to petitioner- Naina Rana, she was 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, subject to certain conditions. A copy of this order was directed to be forwarded to Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police for taking necessary measures for sensitizing the police officials in dealing with such complaints, under intimation to this Court, within a period of four weeks.
Case: Naina Rana vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 2346/2022
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Decided on: 13th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source : https://stocksnap.io/photo/people-couple-88H5BM7G82
