HC:Crime against women, kids is crime against society

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that crime against women and children was “a crime against society as a whole”.

The assertion came as the High Court refused anticipatory bail to a rape accused, who claimed the matter had been compromised with the victim’s father.

“A crime against women and children, being heinous and gruesome, as it not only takes away from them their dignity, but scars their body and soul for all time to come, is a crime against society as a whole,” Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill of the High Court asserted.

The petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail in the case of kidnapping, rape and other offences registered under Sections 363, 363-A, 366-A, 376 and 511 IPC and the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Appearing before the Bench through video-conferencing, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the FIR was registered against some unknown person. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, but was falsely implicated due to political motives. Moreover, a compromise has been finalised between the petitioner and the complainant-father of the victim, vide a compromise deed dated May 1. In such circumstances, the petitioner may be granted the concession of anticipatory bail, the counsel added.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, Justice Gill asserted that the allegations against the accused were of kidnapping the prosecutrix, stated to be 14-year-old, and also committing rape. The counsel’s plea that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and father of the prosecutrix was inconceivable, keeping in view the allegations contained in the FIR, coupled with the fact that the investigation was at the initial stage.

Describing the allegations against the petitioner as “very serious in nature”, Justice Gill added: “In case he is granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, every effort may be made by him to either tamper with the evidence or win over the witnesses”.

Dismissing the plea after not finding merit in the contentions, Justice Gill added that the court was of the opinion that the petitioner was required for custodial interrogation.