Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 568/2012
JUHI KHANAM @ FARHANA TALAT Petitioner
Through: i^jr. R.|vi. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan, l^r. Vishal Sehijpal & i^lr. Gufran
Ahmad, Advocates.
BAIL APPLN. 568/2012
JUHI KHANAM @ FARHANA TALAT Petitioner
Through: i^jr. R.|vi. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan, l^r. Vishal Sehijpal & i^lr. Gufran
Ahmad, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: jvir. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
Through: jvir. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
AND
BAIL APPLN. 569/2012
FARHIN TALAT Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan, Mr. Vishal Sehijpal &. Mr. Gufran Ahmad, Advocates.
FARHIN TALAT Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.M. Tufail, Mr. Anwar A. Khan, Mr. Vishal Sehijpal &. Mr. Gufran Ahmad, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
09.05.2012 These are two anticipatory bail applications in respect of F.I.R.
No.268/2012, under Sections 376/377/323/324 IPG read with Sections
23 & 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act as well as Sections
3 &4 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 16 of
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, registered at Police Station ny
2012:DHC:9712 Jamia Nagar.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.
The allegations against the petitioner are that they had brought a girl child, nannely, Shehnaz, aged around 13-14 years as a domestic help from District Sitamani, Bihar. She was being subjected to sexual assault by Nadeem (son of the petitioner, Juhi Khanam), during the stay with the family. It is alleged that anal sex was also allegedly done by Nadeem, who is presently lodged in jail.
So far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegations against them are that they used to treat the girl with cruelty. It is alleged by the victim that she was beaten up by them apart from the fact that at times, they used to put hot iron rod or chimta on her skin.
On the date of the incident, that is, on 10.4.2012 at about 10:30 p.m., the victim abandoned their home on account of the beatings given to her by the petitioner, Juhi Khanam. The victim was rescued by NGO at the instance of a neighbour whereupon, necessary action was initiated by the police. There is no direct evidence which has been gathered by the prosecution till now which could show the involvement of either of the petitioners in commission of sexual assault on the victim. To that extent, prima facie involvement of both the petitioners was not there but the conduct and the treatment being meted out to the victim by both of them was highly reprehensible and in normal circumstances, a person, who treats a human being in such an inhuman manner, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
The petitioner, Farhin Taiat, is stated to be a medical student, who is likely to appear in examination. I feel that this case should not be a ground to obstruct her studies, although the allegations against him are also serious. Accordingly, in the event of her arrest, Farhin
Taiat, is admitted to anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lO/SHO. This shall be subject to the condition that she shall join investigation, as and when required, and shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the fair investigation.
So far as the petitioner, Juhi Khanam, is concerned, she does not deserve to be given the benefit of anticipatory bail because of severity of charges against her. Accordingly, her bail application is dismissed.
The bail applications stand disposed of.
Any expression of opinion of this court may not be treated as an expression of opinion by the trial court.
V.K. SHALI, 3.
MAY 09, 2012 ^AA'
09.05.2012 These are two anticipatory bail applications in respect of F.I.R.
No.268/2012, under Sections 376/377/323/324 IPG read with Sections
23 & 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act as well as Sections
3 &4 of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and Section 16 of
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, registered at Police Station ny
2012:DHC:9712 Jamia Nagar.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.
The allegations against the petitioner are that they had brought a girl child, nannely, Shehnaz, aged around 13-14 years as a domestic help from District Sitamani, Bihar. She was being subjected to sexual assault by Nadeem (son of the petitioner, Juhi Khanam), during the stay with the family. It is alleged that anal sex was also allegedly done by Nadeem, who is presently lodged in jail.
So far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegations against them are that they used to treat the girl with cruelty. It is alleged by the victim that she was beaten up by them apart from the fact that at times, they used to put hot iron rod or chimta on her skin.
On the date of the incident, that is, on 10.4.2012 at about 10:30 p.m., the victim abandoned their home on account of the beatings given to her by the petitioner, Juhi Khanam. The victim was rescued by NGO at the instance of a neighbour whereupon, necessary action was initiated by the police. There is no direct evidence which has been gathered by the prosecution till now which could show the involvement of either of the petitioners in commission of sexual assault on the victim. To that extent, prima facie involvement of both the petitioners was not there but the conduct and the treatment being meted out to the victim by both of them was highly reprehensible and in normal circumstances, a person, who treats a human being in such an inhuman manner, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
The petitioner, Farhin Taiat, is stated to be a medical student, who is likely to appear in examination. I feel that this case should not be a ground to obstruct her studies, although the allegations against him are also serious. Accordingly, in the event of her arrest, Farhin
Taiat, is admitted to anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lO/SHO. This shall be subject to the condition that she shall join investigation, as and when required, and shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the fair investigation.
So far as the petitioner, Juhi Khanam, is concerned, she does not deserve to be given the benefit of anticipatory bail because of severity of charges against her. Accordingly, her bail application is dismissed.
The bail applications stand disposed of.
Any expression of opinion of this court may not be treated as an expression of opinion by the trial court.
V.K. SHALI, 3.
MAY 09, 2012 ^AA'
JUDGMENT