Honble MATHUR, J.–The instant habeas corpus petition though filed a way back in September, 2000 and the corpus namely mst. Bagtu was produced in Court on 16.11.2000 and the custody was given to the petitioners, but the petition has been kept pending to ensure that the culprits are brought to the book and complete justice is done to the victim. The proceedings in the instant case has raised certain important issues of criminal justice system with reference to the offence against women. Much is said about gender justice in the United Charter. In the Indian Constitution, there are provisions of equality jurisprudence. The crime against women has been specified under various provisions in Indian Penal Code i.e. Sections 376, 366, 354, 304-B, 306, 498-a & 509 IPC. The domestic violence has also been covered under the Indian Penal Code by recent amendments. There are special laws like commission of Sati (Prevention Act, 1987, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Immoral trafficking Prevention Act, 1956 and Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 dealing with crimes against women. There are various statutory and non- statutory bodies to take care of womens right, may be right to health, right to privacy, right to job and protection against sexual harassment. Still there are challenges, which are required to be responded by the Society particularly he State and judiciary, which we have come across in the instant case i.e. patronage culture, caste taboos, non-sensitivity on the part of magistracy.

(2). The factual backdrop in which the aforesaid issues have arisen is as follows:-

The victim Mst.Bagtu, while she was still one month old was engaged with an infant, named Sohanlal the son of the 4th respondent Jagmal. She studied upto 8th Standard, Sohanlal turned out to be mentally unsound. Thus, Mst. Bagtu refused to marry with him. This gave rise to dispute between the two families. Matter was taken to the ``Jati Panchayat", wherein he caste taboo prevailed, issuing command against Mst.Bagtu, which was not accepted by her and the parents. Against the command of Jati Panchayat Mst. Bagtu was married to Manoharlal of Makasar on 11.3.2000. When the Panchas of the Caste and the family members of sohanlal came to know of this fact, the panchayat was reconvened. The family members of Mst. Bagtu were threatened to pay compensation in huge sum or to face dire consequences for disobeying the command of the Caste Panchayat. her father disagreed to the unreasonable demand. As the members of the victim family were threatened, they approached to the police and as such proceedings under Section 107 & 116 Cr.P.C. were registered against some of the leaders of the Caste Panchayat and family members of Sohanlal. Large number of people of the community assembled outside the residence of the victims father. He was charged for disobeying the resolution of the Caste Panchayat. Some anti-social elements, who had become comparatively affluent, by unlawful means, took advantage of the situation, started threatening the victims family to part with huge sum of face consequences. Thus, on 5.8.2000 the 4th respondent Jagmal with other persons of village Dechu reached at the matrimonial house of the victim and abducted her after causing injuries to her husband and other inmates. A First Information Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Bajju, Bikaner for offence under Section 307, 366, 323, 352, 147, 148 & 149 IPC. When the police failed to trace out Mst. Bagtu the first petitioner Birju Ram the father of Mst. Bagtu and second petitioner her husband Manoharlal approached to this Court by way of filing the instant petition. The police failed to produce Mst.Bagtu for considerable time. The petitioners made a grievance of political and police protection to abductors. The complaint of continuous threat to withdraw the instant petition was also made. Strangely,while police failed to produce Mst. Bagtu before this court, it was reported that her statement under S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document