The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant bail to a woman’s mother and grandmother accused of abducting and attacking the woman and her newly wed husband and chopping off his private parts.
While doing so, the Court observed that questions of faith have no bearing on an individual’s freedom to choose a life partner and that this freedom is an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that wherever life and liberty of a person is concerned in cases of couples legally marrying, the police are expected to act expeditiously and with sensitivity and take necessary measures for their protection and safety
By way of background, the man named Raman had married a woman, Menka, from their family without consent.
The allegation was that the couple had returned to Delhi after solemnisation of marriage on December 22, 2021 when Menka’s family threatened to kill him.
The couple went to Rajouri Garden Police station to submit an application for protection but on their way back, they were attacked by the woman’s brothers and uncles. They took the couple to their house at Sagarpur where other members of the family also joined.
As per the Police case, Menka’s 86-year-old grandmother Kaushalya then said that Raman does not deserve any mercy and exhorted other family members to chop off his private parts in order to eliminate the entire problem.
It was also pointed out that Kaushalya has 42 criminal cases registered against her.
Menka’s mother Geeta was also accused of having participated in the assault and having exhorted the family members. She was declared a proclaimed offender during the initial stage of the proceedings.
The third applicant was Menka’s sister Naina Rana.
After considering the arguments, the Court noted that no active role was attributed to Naina Rana and, therefore, held that she can be granted bail.
However, as regards the other two other accused, the Court noted the allegation against them of having participated in the assault and of exhorting other family members to amputate the private parts of the complainant.
The Court added that the fact that both Geeta and Kaushalya have criminal antecedents cannot be ignored as well.
Hence, their plea for bail was denied.
Justice Mendiratta further said that it was unfortunate that necessary steps for ensuring the safety and security of the victims/complainant were not initiated by the SHO, Police Station Rajouri Garden on the complaint of victims.
“The conduct of the concerned police officials in this regard is deprecable and needs to be looked into and necessary action taken. Any such lapse cannot be accepted on behalf of the police,” the Court said.
The Court directed a copy of its order to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, for taking necessary measures for sensitizing the police officials in dealing with such complaints within four weeks.
Advocates Rahul Sharma, Prabhash Malik, Vinay Daggar, Sudhir Naagar and Vikrant Mehta appeared for applicants.
APP Laksh Khanna appeared for the State.
Source Link
