Rapped by HC over bail order, judge apologises

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 21

Less than two months after a judicial officer was rapped for passing an order that did not meet the requirement or criteria for granting anticipatory bail, the Judge apologised before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

“The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Panipat, has given an explanation that the error was committed due to a bona fide and inadvertent mistake and has also submitted his unconditional apology for the same,” Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan asserted. Accepting the apology, Justice Sangwan noted that further action was not called for.

THE CASE FILE

• The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on August 8 for rape, criminal breach of trust, subjecting a married woman to cruelty and other offences at the Samalkha police station in Panipat
• The High Court had directed the judicial officer to submit an explanation as to how the main accused was granted bail without reference to the allegations of entrustment and demand of dowry

The Bench also took note of an affidavit filed by the Panipat Superintendent of Police, stating that Section 376, read with 511 of the IPC, on rape and another offence was deleted and Section 354 of the IPC on outrage of modesty was added, based on the statement made by the complainant before a medical officer. She had stated that rape was not committed, but an attempt was made.

Justice Sangwan confirmed the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to the complainant’s brother-in-law. The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on August 8 for rape, criminal breach of trust, subjecting a married woman to cruelty and other offences at the Samalkha police station in Panipat.

The complainant, among other things, had alleged that her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and had been demanding more. It was further stated in the FIR that the petitioner-brother-in-law used to harass her.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sangwan had, on the previous date of hearing, directed the judicial officer to submit an explanation as to how the main accused-husband was granted bail without reference to the allegations of entrustment and demand of dowry against him, while observing that the allegation of attempt to rape was not against him.