HC directs for inquiry against PO, IO; action against Judicial Officer

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Apr 18: High Court has quashed bail order in kidnapping and rape of minor passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class R S Pura with the direction to the SSP Jammu to take custody of the accused. Moreover, the High Court has directed Registry to place the order before the Chief Justice for initiating appropriate action against the Judicial Officer so that the faith of the people on the temple of justice is not shattered and eroded.
“The Prosecuting Officer and Incharge ASI Police Station R S Pura have suppressed a material fact in the objections filed and the report submitted before the court. They have not stated anywhere in the objections and the report that in her statement recorded prior in point of time, the prosecutrix has accused Masooma Bibi of compelling her to submit herself to the sexual lust and desire of three persons, who subjected her to forcible rape for a long time”, Justice M K Hanjura said.
“This serious lapse on their part requires a thorough probe.  Therefore, it is a fit case where an inquiry should be conducted against the Prosecuting Officer and the ASI Ghulam Nabi concerned to find their culpability”, High Court added.
Justice Hanjura directed Registrar Judicial to forward a copy of this order to the DGP J&K Police for conducting an inquiry into the conduct of these officers and he shall report before the court the result of the inquiry and action, if any, taken against them with utmost dispatch preferably within a period of four weeks.
“No doubt, this court is conscious of the fact that elaborate documentation is not required to be made in the bail application but the law provides that while dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused is charged of having committed a serious offence”, Justice Hanjura further said, adding “any order de hors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as is noted by the Supreme Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Versus Sudarshan Singh”.
Looking at the nature of the offence, the ferocity of the crime, the statement of the prosecutrix, the apprehension of threat to the victim at the hands of the accused and co-accused, there was no reason to admit the accused/respondent to bail in a crime, which has a serious magnitude and it will be a sheer abuse of the process of law, in case the order dated 21.09.2017 vide which the accused/respondent has been admitted to bail is allowed to continue, Justice Hanjura said.
Invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 561-A CrPC, High Court quashed the impugned order.