1 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5366/2009 (Smt.Sushila Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order : 17th November 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.R.K.Gehlot for the petitioner Mr.Anil Joshi Public Prosecutor Mr.M.S.Purohit ) Mr.B.S.Bhalasria) for the complainant The petitioner is an accused in FIR No.167/2009 Police Station, Phalodi District Jodhpur wherein investigation has been taken up for offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC on a report made by Gopal son of Jeevanlal on 05.08.2009 alleging that his sister Chuki, resident of Maliyo Ka Bas, Phalodi, had been abducted by Udaram Mali, resident of Bawarla Mathania who was working with an onion-contractor and residing as tenant with Tarachand son of Mangla Ram. The complainant, while giving out the mobile numbers of Udaram and so also the said contractor, stated that his sister, minor in age, was not traceable since 04.08.2009. It appears that during the course of investigation in this matter, the investigating agency recorded certain statements wherefrom it was deduced that the said girl Chuki came to the house of the present petitioner Sushila wife of Tarachand where the petitioner rather put ceremonial colour on her forehead and made her to elope with the said boy Uda. It appears that the investigating agency earlier made certain enquiries from several persons including the present petitioner 2 Sushila on 08.08.2009 and then kept on searching the said girl and boy but without results. Thereafter, certain supplementary statements were recorded like one of Kumari Parvati, sister of Chuka, on 03.10.2009 and the investigating agency proceeded to arrest the present petitioner on 03.10.2009. The petitioner continues to remain in custody ever since then. The bail application as moved by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi on 07.10.2009 with reference to the material on record including the supplementary statement of the said witness Kumari Parvati and looking to the overall circumstances including the fact that abducted girl was said to be 17 years of age. Thereafter, the present bail application was moved to this Court. This matter came up for consideration on 28.10.2009 and though counsel for the petitioner strenuously pressed for grant of bail to the petitioner but this Court, in the given set of facts and circumstances, deferred the consideration of the bail application until further investigation in the matter with the following order:- ''Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously pressed for consideration of the bail plea of the present petitioner Smt. Sushila W/o Tara Chand particularly with the submissions that she has unnecessary and falsely been implicated, that some artificial and baseless evidence is sought to 3 be created in the matter, and that after the investigating agency could not lay hands on the relevant persons, only the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of the so-called supplementary statements as recorded on 03.10.2009 but then, after examining the case diary thoroughly, this Court finds that prima facie accusations against the petitioner are of having been privy to the occurrence leading to abduction and removal of the minor girl Chuki, who is said to have eloped with Uda Ram and of the petitioner having been, allegedly, the part of the dealings right from the inception. It is noticed that the police, even after making so-called incessant efforts, has not been able to recover the said girl Chuki and nor has been able to lay hands on the other relevant accused persons. Though this Court has reservations on the manner of conduct of the proceedings in this matter by the investigating agency and on their failure to take effective steps in the matter and to come out with concrete results but then, at this stage of the proceedings and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear appropriate to order release of the petitioner; and rather it appears appropriate to keep this bail application pending until further investigation is made in the matter. Consideration of this bail application is, therefore, deferred. The learned Public Prosecutor may return the case diary with appropriate instructions but shall complete his instructions on or before the next date and, if necessary, shall keep the Investigating Officer present before the Court. List this matter on 13.11.2009. This bail application thereafter came up for consideration on 13.11.2009 and after perusing the case diary as produced by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court expressed thorough dissatisfaction over the manner of conduct of the matter and even pointed out that the papers 4 and propositions on the alleged progress as placed on record appeared to be rather of an eye-wash. The learned Public Prosecutor also very frequently and candidly submitted that he had expressed his own dissatisfaction over the manner of investigation; but at request, he was granted some time until the second session sitting of the Court. In the second session, at request, looking to the circumstances, the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2009; and has finally been heard today. The matter being pending allegedly for so-called investigation, this Court would not be making any comments so as to reflect on anything related with the merits of the case but after examining the case diary, this Court cannot help putting on record thorough dissatisfaction over the manner of conduct of investigation in this matter right from the inception until now where, put in nutshell, the investigating agency has only shown its inability to trace the said girl, the said boy, and even other persons indicated to be connected with the matter one way or the other. Though while considering the matter earlier, this Court found prima facie that the petitioner was suggested to be privy to the entire dealing resulting in elopement of the said girl and then deferred consideration of the bail application but looking to an entirely sorry state of affairs where only the petitioner, who is otherwise said to be indirectly a party to the matter, has been arrested; and where it appears that merely paper work has been done so far other aspects are concerned rather than 5 coming out with concrete steps and effective results, and looking to the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court finds no justification at all for continuing with the detention of the petitioner any further. Accordingly, this bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Smt.Sushila w/o Tarachand Mali be released on bail in relation to FIR No. 167/2009 Police Station, Phalodi provided she executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for her appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever and wherever called upon to do so till the completion of trial. Though this order concerns only with the bail plea of the petitioner but this Court cannot help reiterating thorough dissatisfaction over the manner of conduct of investigation in this case; and it is expected of the authorities concerned to take appropriate corrective measures. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.