Coming down heavily on the alleged misuse of criminal law machinery, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Punjab Police to initiate immediate action against a complainant in a rape case after observing that she had “admittedly abused the process of law” and attempted to use the criminal justice system as an instrument of harassment and pressure.
The direction came as the High Court granted regular bail to the accused booked in a rape case registered in Ludhiana in February this year. Among other things, the Bench was told that the complainant’s affidavit demonstrated that “she has levelled the false allegations due to mental distress, emotional turmoil, jealousy and misunderstanding”.
Justice Alok Jain asserted the court could not permit its process to be used for harassment or to exert undue pressure upon an accused. “Such conduct of the complainant deserves to be strongly deprecated,” the court observed, while ordering the State to “initiate immediate action against the complainant for abusing the process of law and take it to a logical end”.
Justice Jain also directed the submission of a compliance report by July 10. During the hearing of the regular bail petition, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the complainant was a 36-year-old married woman with three children and had earlier been residing as a tenant in the same building as the accused.
The defence further pointed to a delay of nearly nine years in lodging the FIR and relied upon the complainant’s affidavit placed on record. The State, meanwhile, informed the court that the accused had remained in custody for over two months.
After hearing the parties, Justice Jain held that further incarceration was unwarranted, particularly as the trial was likely to consume considerable time. The court observed that no useful purpose would be served by continued detention.
“The petitioner is in custody for last two months and two days, further incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted, moreover, the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to the concession of regular bail,” Justice Jan asserted, while ordered the accused’s release on regular bail subject to stringent conditions.
Among other directions, the accused was ordered to disclose his ordinary place of residence and mobile number, keep the phone operational at all times, mark presence before the SHO every 15 days, and not leave the country without prior court permission.
The court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order would not amount to a final opinion on the merits of the case. It also granted liberty to the State to seek cancellation of bail in case the accused was found involved in any similar activity or violated bail conditions.
