Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition seeking regular bail in a First Information Report (‘FIR’) after the complainant’s minor daughter went missing, alleging kidnap by the petitioner, involving offences under Sections 363 and 365 of Penal Code, 1860, Sandeep Moudgil, J. pulled the senior police officials for callous approach and restricted any unwarranted investigation against the young petitioner who was in jail for more than a year and had produced some photographs of missing girl wandering freely.
The Court referred to the production of certain photographs and stills from CCTV footage affixed in the area by the petitioner to assert that the complainant’s missing daughter was living safely in her mother/complainant’s company as was seen near the Court Complex on 11-02-2023 and at further occasions wandering freely taking a ride on pillion seat of an Activa with some male member.
The Court highlighted the casual manner of investigation conducted by the SIT regarding the photographs and CCTV footage, and the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated for the past 1 year and 2 months. The Court had granted regular bail to the petitioner vide order dated 15-01-2024, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to explain the progress in investigation, and observed that the prosecution was not taking interest in the proceedings of the trial because after framing of charges on 3-05-2023, none of the 16 prosecution witnesses were examined. The Court had expressed that “In that eventuality keeping the petitioner for an indefinite period behind the bars on account of delay in the trial proceedings, which is not attributable to him, tantamount to infringement of right to life and liberty.”
The Court perused the submission that the investigation was carried out, but the missing girl was untraced, and that specific areas were searched, call details of the missing girl and petitioner were procured, but nothing incriminating could be found. Though the SSP stated that the DVR of CCTV of missing girl riding on a scooty was not on record, and that a show cause notice was issued to the SIT against which appropriate legal action would be initiated for such faulty investigation, the Court questioned such explanation that the CCTV was sent to FSL for further examination while the statements of complainant and another after showing such photographs reflected denial of recognition.
After the Court pointed towards the irresponsible and callous approach of senior police officer who were also the members of SIT, the SSP undertook to himself head the SIT and make possible endeavors to trace the missing girl after conducting investigation from all angles including that whether the complaint on the basis of which the present FIR has been instituted against the petitioner is genuine or not.
The Court agitatedly expressed that “This Court cannot shut its eyes and ignore the larger interest while exercising inherent powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that it is not merely a question of considering the regular bail of the petitioner, who is 20 years old young boy and on the other hand a minor girl, who is less than 16 years of age and it is a question before the investigating agency and law enforcing agency of the State, to exercise all kinds of care and caution for protecting the lives and liberty of two individuals ensuring that even the petitioner should not be put to unwarranted investigation, if at all the complainant is playing smart, as there is every likelihood of such a counter by parents of a minor girl, as is circumstances involved in the instant case.”
The Court further directed the SSP to ensure that the FSL report was speeded up and also sought filing the day-to-day progress of investigation before the Court on the next hearing scheduled on 29-01-2024.
[Aman v. State of Punjab, Criminal Main No. 13821 of 2023, Order dated 18-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate Jagjeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General Anmol Singh Sandhu, Advocate Abha Kashyap, Advocate Arvind Kashyap
