Ignoring HC order, UP cops jail man in love, Pocso court frees him

BAREILLY: Taking note of a Punjab and Haryana high court order which granted "protection from harassment" to a fleeing young couple from UP -- but was "disregarded by Bareilly police", a local Pocso court on Wednesday declared the urgent release of the 23-year-old man from jail and directed Bareilly SSP to probe the investigating officer's "negligence and take necessary action".After Ravi Rana, 23, and his 19-year-old lover both from different castes fled from Bareilly to marry in Delhi and took shelter in Chandigarh in mid-Feb, the girl's father claimed that his daughter was seventeen, and filed a case of rape and abduction against him at Aliganj police station in Bareilly on Feb 22. Rana was subsequently booked under the Pocso Act and other BNS sections.In the meantime, the couple sought protection from family and police and approached the Punjab and Haryana HC for a ruling. The court in Chandigarh granted them protection. But, Rana was picked up by UP police and sent to jail.A few days later, when the girl returned home, she told the police in her statement that "Rana neither had physical relations with her nor engaged in harassment or sexual assault". Rana's lawyer, Lavlesh Pathak, then submitted an objection letter in Bareilly court, arguing that the basis for sending the young man to judicial custody was "incorrect," and BNS section 64 and 3/4 of Pocso Act against him were also wrong.He also presented the HC order dated Feb 17, which "prohibited harassment of the accused". The court in Bareilly stated in its decision that the "investigator did not comply with a crucial order issued by the HC". Based on this, the accused was deemed "innocent" and his immediate release was ordered upon presenting a personal bond of Rs 50,000.Pathak further said, "The petitioners (the couple) filed a petition in HC in Chandigarh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondents (parents and relatives) to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners from the hands of respondents and not to interfere in the matrimonial life of the petitioners at the behest of respondents and other relatives and friends. Both the petitioners were ‘major' and married against the wishes of their parents. They apprehend danger from parents. Their marriage certificate as well as photographs evidencing their union were on record...""The HC, without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of documents placed on the file, disposed of the petition with a direction to SSP Chandigarh to decide the representation of the petitioners and grant them protection if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived," Pathak added.