V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) THE Court took notice in this matter on a complaint received by Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court by a Senior Advocate of Sirsa, who, of course, did not mention his name. It appears that the matter was referred to me being the Inspecting Judge of the Courts located in District Sirsa in which District prosecutrix-Surjit was allegedly gang-raped. Even though the complaint was against the Presiding Officer of the Court, Shri Gorakh Nath, Sessions Judge, Sirsa, who dealt with the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the accused, it was thought appropriate to first deal, on judicial side, with the matter as such treating the complaint to be application for cancellation of the bail and then to deal in the matter on administrative side against the officer concerned, if circumstances so demanded.
(2.) ON August 17, 1994, thus, I issued notice to the Advocate General, Haryana, the prosecutrix and the accused. Shri R. S. Cheema, a Senior Advocate of this Court was requested to assist the Court in the matter. The records of the case were also sent for. On the adjourned date i. e. September 2,1994, the police file containing all papers regarding investigation of the matter and records from the Sessions Court were made available and were ordered to be retained in the Court. The parties were given opportunity to get all or any document that they required with a view to defend this case. Shri Surjit Kaur prosecutrix did not appear on the adjourned date i. e. September 9,1994, matter had to be adjourned for September 16, 1994. On the date aforesaid, however, Smt. Surjit Kaur attended the Court and was asked some questions which exercise became necessary in view of the fact that during the pendency of this petition, two affidavits were allegedly given by her in which she had denied the incident, subject matter of First Information Report which she lodged 7/8 days after the incident of rape. Before I proceed with the matter any further, it will be useful to detail the facts of the case right from the date when the FIR was lodged in the matter till date. The FIR No. 66 dated February 24, 1994, under Sections 376, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code came to be recorded by police of Police Station Sadar, Dabwali. On the said date Surjit Kaur along with her husband and mother-in-law Pritam Kaur and Seema Advani in charge of the Musical Group got registered this case and she stated that she was married about ten years ago and got a female child of five years old and she was working as a Dancer in Bright Musical Group of Seema Advani. Her husband was working as a Taxi Driver and the Musical Group in which she was working used to give performance with Orchestra at the time of marriages and other occasions, on February 5,1994, Sanjeev alias Dogar Bajaj had booked this group from 6. 00 p. m. to 12. 00 p. m. mid night on February 15, 1994 in connection with the marriage of Sanjay son of Gorakshak Chaudhary, resident of Dabwali with the daughter of one Subhash Dharnia of Abub Shahar. The booking was settled at a total consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was paid in advance whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 13,000/- was to be paid before the actual performance of the group on February 15, 1994. Five Musicians, one singer, two persons who looked after the sound system and four girls including the singer named Jasbir alias Jassi worked in this group and that three girls used to give dance performances. She herself, Radhika and Anita were the dance performers on such occasions. She further alleged that on February 15, 1994 Seema Advani and her husband Kanhaiya Advani along with the remaining group reached the place at 6. 00 p. m. but the programme commenced only at 10. 00 p. m. and continued up to 2. 00 a. m. on the next morning. When the programme was about to conclude, some persons who were guests of bridegroom and who were drunk started raising noise resulting into winding up of the programme. The group people including the prosecutrix then put their luggage into two wagons which they had brought with them from Ludhiana. She and three other girls occupied one Maruti Van along with brother of Radhika aged 12/ 13 years. When the driver of their Van started the vehicle, some other Maruti Cars followed them. When their van reached on the road, one Maruti car at once came ahead of Maruti Van and four persons including the bridegroom came out of that car and one of these persons was carrying a pistol. All the four persons then came towards the window of their van but the remaining three female companions of the prosecutrix got down from the van from the other window and ran away but the four persons caught hold of her from hair and dragged her to their car. The man who was carrying the pistol threatened to kill her if she raised any alarm. She was brought to a Tourist Complex known as 'kala Tittar' Abub Shahar. She was then taken to a room on the first floor of that complex on pistol point. The door was bolted from inside and she was forcibly put on the bed and her clothes were removed. Sanjay addressed one person as 'baljit Jija' (brother-in-law) and told him that first of all he should enjoy her and then Baljit committed rape on her. Thereafter, Sanjay addressed another perosn as 'joginder Bhai' (brother) and told him that it was his turn now. Joginder then committed rape on her. Thereafter, Sanjay in whose marriage her Musical Group had come to give performance committed rape on her and thereafter fourth man committed rape on her. She could not know the name of 4th man but she could identify him. She also alleged that she remained crying with pain but the accused did not listen and all this continued for about 1 1/2 hours and during this period she kept on requesting the persons committing rape on her with folded hands that she should be allowed to go. The accused threatened her with murder if she was to report the matter to any one or to the police about the incident. She was left there and thus covered the distance up to Abub Shahar on foot by which time it had become day time. She found that her Maruti Van was lying parked on the road and Jassi and the driver of the van were sitting in the van. They were also thoroughly frightened. She, however, occupied the van and went to Ludhiana. Radhika, Anita and brother of Radhika did not meet her. After reaching Ludhiana, she narrated the entire incident to her mother-in-law Pritam Kaur. Her husband was informed later as he was not there at Ludhiana having gone out of station and had returned only on February 23,1994. It is only when the matter was brought to the notice of the husband that she along with her husband, Seema Advani and also her mother-in-law came to report the matter to the police. She stated before the police that clothes which she was wearing on the date of occurrence were torn and were also stained and that she had kept the clothes at her house and could produce the same. On the basis of the statement of Surjit Kaur prosecutrix, as narrated above, the FIR came to be recorded by the police.
(3.) BALJIT Singh on February 26,1994 i. e. just two days after the FIR came to be recorded by the police applied for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter came to be disposed of by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 28th itself. The bail application after taking into consideration the entire prosecution story and the defence version was rejected. The operative part of the order passed by the Sessions Judge reads as follows : "i have given an anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties. The delay in lodging the report in this case is not of much consequence at this stage of the case because the prosecutrix was married lady and it was not unnatural in India that the police report is lodged in cases of rape after giving serious thinking by the family members whether to expose or not to expose oneself in the society because the society looks (down upon) the victim instead of having sympathy. In view of this, no capital can be made out of the so called delay in lodging the FIR at this stage of the case. Having regard to the grave and reprehensible nature of offence alleged (Emphasis supplied) to have been committed in this case and keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of this case. I am of the considered opinion that the accused-applicants do not deserve to be given concession of anticipatory bail. These applications are, thus, rejected. " It requires to be mentioned that one of the pleas raised in the application filed by Baljit Singh accused was that being a Traffic Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal, he was at the place of duty on February 15, 1994, the alleged date of occurrence. He along with other members of the staff checked Haryana Roadways buses of Kaithal Karnal road up to 9. 00 p. m. on February 15,1994. Since the occurrence had taken place on the intervening night of 15/ 16th of February, 1994, it was stated that he could not be present at the time of occurrence. Joginder Singh too filed petition for grant of anticipatory bail on the same very date i. e. February 26,1994, which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge on February 28, 1994. In fact, both the applications came to be disposed of with the common order. ;