The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday snubbed the Haryana government for its failure to submit a status report on the investigation into the alleged kidnapping and rape of a minor in Fatehabad district in which, according to the petitioners, the relatives of state BJP president Subash Barala are the main accused.
Justice Jitendra Chauhan during the resumed hearing of the case asked the rape survivor to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing.
“The government has been asked to submit the status report, and High Court has also asked the proseturix to remain present in Courtroom on next date of hearing to ascertains the true facts of the case,” advocate Pankaj Bhardwaj told The Indian Express.
The minor victim, through her mother and uncle, in June had moved the High Court seeking investigation into the crime and action against the accused Vikram alias Vicky, Sunny, Kuldeep Barala and his wife Sanju, who are alleged to be co-accused in the case. The petitioners have also sought transfer of the investigation into the case to a senior official or independent agency, saying the accused are relatives of MLA from Tohana Constituency and alleging that owing to his influence, no action was taken against the accused till date.
High Court earlier in August had asked the government to submit the latest status report into the case.
The minor had been allegedly abducted by Vicky with the help of the other accused in the case and the police after her recovery had registered an FIR under Sections 363 and 366A on May 8 for the abduction against the accused at Police Station Sadar, Tohana in the Fatehabad district.
It has also been alleged in the petition that the minor was raped in April by the main accused Vicky on the pretext of marriage and she had been threatened to not tell anyone about it.
The family has alleged that the investigating officer in the case has refused to record the statement of the victim on the rape allegation.
The family has also alleged that despite repeated requests, the police has not produced the victim before a magistrate for her second statement since the earlier statement was not free from fear and was made under pressure and influence of the accused persons in collusion with local police. The accused persons are influential. Under this influence, [minor] was threatened not to make any statement against the accused persons, her counsel in the case has said in the plea before the High Court.