SC Grants Protection To Young Woman Who Expressed Her Apprehension Of Threat To Life From Family Members
The Supreme Court has yesterday granted protection to a young woman who expressed her apprehension that there is a threat to her life from her family members.
A Vacation Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra directed, “Since, the victim-Siddhi Gupta has expressed apprehension that there is a threat to her life and that she wants to go back to Varanasi where she stays, it is directed that SHO, Tilak Marg, Police Station, New Delhi shall provide protection to the victim who is at present sitting in the court room and shall make necessary arrangements to drop her at Varanasi today itself.”
The Bench refused to interfere with the orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby it cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to a man accused of kidnapping the victim.
Advocate Ajay Vikram Singh appeared for the petitioner while Advocates Mrinal Gopal Elker and Aarushi Gupta appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the High Court and when the matters were being heard, the victim appeared through video conferencing and requested the Court to permit her to appear in person. Thereafter, she appeared before the Court and expressed her apprehension that there was a threat to her life from her family members and that her brother was following her.
The victim further apprehended that she will be taken back home forcibly where she does not want to go. According to her, she at present stayed in Varanasi and wanted to go back to Varanasi, but prayed for protection from the Apex Court in this regard.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned orders passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court vide the impugned order had cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by observing that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation and was not responding to the Investigating Officer despite being called. … Having regard to the said observations, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court.”
The Court directed the petitioner to surrender to the concerned police station within two days but said that it shall be open for him to make an appropriate application seeking bail as may be permissible under the law and the same shall be decided by the concerned court as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by the observations made in its order.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the pleas.
Cause Title- Durg Vijay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
