Latest News
Back
Document:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Rebukes the Police Officials in Bathinda rape case for forming an entire male SIT team
Facts and Background:
The Petitioner, in this case, was a 38-year-old widow whose 19-year-old son was apprehended by CIA police personnel. It was further stated that, even though Petitioner's kid was suffering/recovering from a Covid-19 infection at his home, he was snatched up by CIA police officials in broad daylight on 06.05.2021 at 10.00 a.m., since the Petitioner had refused to comply with the sexual favor asked from her. Furthermore, it was claimed that her son was the subject of a bogus FIR. This FIR was filed under the NDPS Act by planting contraband on him. And finally, under coercion to get release her son, she had to admit to the sexual demands of the CIA staff. Thus, the petitioner filed the petition against the CIA officials of Punjab.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Bhasin, the Petitioner's Learned Counsel, claimed that the Petitioner gave in to the CIA's sexual requests under duress to get her kid released. In addition, the Petitioner had attached a pen drive to verify her claims. This pen drive contains audio recordings of the Petitioner's chats with Respondent No.5 (an ASI), as well as live video clips in support of her rape allegations. Furthermore, the Petitioner's Learned Counsel argued that the Petitioner was afraid that the police officers involved in the case would try to physically attack her and tamper with or destroy the evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State's Learned Counsel, on the other side, argued that the facts of the case are artificial and not true. Furthermore, the Counsel stated that the Petitioner had set up a honey trap with this matter. And this honey trap eventually backfired on the Petitioner.
Court’s Observations
In this instance, Justice Arun Monga's bench initially commented that the claims and factual averments contained in the current petition were so gruesome and terrifying that one can only hope that the facts were fake, as the State Counsel also maintained. Furthermore, in response to the State Counsel's honey trap argument, the Court stated that if this case was not a honey trap set by the Petitioner, it was a case that represented the sad state of affairs in Punjab Police, particularly at the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) in Bathinda. Furthermore, the petition argued that the very protectors/enforcers of law and order had turned into predators, making a young 38-year-old widow mother a victim of their lust. In addition, the Court declined to provide the story to protect and respect the Petitioner's privacy.
Additionally, the Court observed that considering the nature of the sensitive inquiry, it was very curious that no lady police officer was involved, which was even otherwise the requirement of law in circumstances of this kind when seeing the SIT team constituted by the officials. To say the least, it was highly deplorable to see the insensitiveness with which the district police officials had acted, in constituting the SIT having all male members. And thus, directed to constitute a new SIT team that only had women members.
Held:
Following the foregoing remarks, the Court decided to replace Petitioner's name with "Madam X" whenever possible in the petition. The Court also ordered the Respondent No.1-State of Punjab, through its Director General of Police, to form a new SIT led by Ms. Gurpreet Deo, Additional Director General of Police, with Ms. D. Sudarvizhi Senior Superintendent of Police Sri Mukatsar Sahib, and Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Budhlada, Mansa.
The Court ordered the State Counsel to obtain information on all of the actions taken as well as for instructions on when the investigation should be finished. It was further directed that Learned State Counsel seek instructions on the procedures taken thus far to prosecute the Accused in criminal proceedings stemming from both FIRs, as well as any departmental action taken if any. Instructions must be requested on or before the next hearing date, which is May 27, 2021.
Document:
