Gurmail Singh and another vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Singh, J.—Gurmail Singh, who is father of boy, who had allegedly enticed away the daughter of the complainant, alongwith his mother, Surinder Kaur @ Sawinder Kaur, has approached this Court for grant of bail in case registered under Sections 363, 366 and 120B IPC. Ranjodh Singh, who is son of petitioner No. 1, has married Shivani, daughter of the complainant. This marriage is outcome of their love affair. The complainant, accordingly, had registered this FIR when his daughter had left the parental house to marry Ranjodh Singh. The present petitioners were arrested on 11.01.2012. The allegations in the FIR against them simply are that petitioner No. 2 had helped the boy and the girl to elope. The consequence is that 70 years old lady has been made to undergo custody of more than three months. The Investigating Officer, who is present, has been asked to explain as to what was the need for taking the petitioners in custody, considering the nature of allegation made against them in the FIR. This was more so in the background that boy and the girl namely Ranjodh Singh and Shivani had approached this Court for grant of protection on the ground that they had married against the wishes of parents of the girl.

This Court had issued direction to the police on 13.01.2012 to grant requisite protection to the couple. This order was received by the police station concerned on being dispatched on 16.01.2012 when the same became available. The boy and the girl are also present in the Court. They are staying as husband and wife. They have already moved this Court for quashing of this FIR.

In the background as noticed above, making 70 years old lady to undergo detention of over three months would appear very unfair and unreasonable. On query of the Court, it could be ascertained that the Investigating Officer was aware that it is not always necessary to take a person in custody for the purpose of investigation. Only where custodial interrogation is needed, the persons may be taken in custody. The police ought to show some sensitivity and spare at least old and infirm ladies. The police ought to have realized that in such like cases the main allegations, if any, would against the boy. Simply because the complainant had stated that somebody else had helped, should have prompted the police to ascertain the nature and manner of such help before acting against such old lady. It will not be for this Court to comment where and when accused person is to be taken in custody but certainly a need for taking the petitioner in custody, considering the stage and liability, apparently was not called for.

No one now can compensate this 70 years old lady for having suffered this custody in this case where no allegation of abetment of kidnapping is made out. No corrective action has also been taken by the police even on coming to know the correct factual position. It may need to be observed that Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the prayer for the bail of the petitioner, ought to have shown some more sensitivity.

On an earlier occasion, this Court had made some observation while dealing with cases of run away marriages in Criminal Misc. No. 61111 of 2011 order dated 14.12.2011. It was observed as under:

Mr. Anupam Gupta, amicus curiae has very forcefully pleaded that such couple, who perform such love marriages ought to be protected from the wrath of the police. The counsel justifiably submits that FIRs for kidnapping in such cases are registered at the asking of parents to pressurize the couple in love to succumb and separate. A case appears to be made out to issue some directions to check this approach which may not sound legally appropriate. The directions are, therefore, issued to the respective States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory that where there is a proper proof or evidence of marriage or of couple being in love, the police should normally desist from registering criminal cases against such couples. In all such cases, it would be appropriate to hold some enquiry before acting in the case. The police would also not to take any action to chase or harass such couples. The police would proceed in such cases when the girl complains or is found to have been compelled to perform marriage etc.

These may need to be reiterated here.

Except for expressing anguish, there is no solace, which one can offer to this old lady-petitioner No. 2. Of course she alongwith petitioner No. 1 should be immediately granted bail to which she and her son are entitled to. The petitioners are allowed bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar.