Facts of the Case

This case arises as an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand (Single Judge). The appeal concerns the application for bail of the second respondent, MD Nadeem, who is the accused in the case. The High Court of Jharkhand allowed the application for bail, but subject to certain conditions. 

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed at PS Kanke, District Ranchi. The FIR was filed under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for rape, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POSCO Act), which provides punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. According to the petitioner, the second respondent, who is accused, took her (a minor at the time) to a residential hotel and engaged in sexual relations with her under the promise of marriage. However, he later refused to marry her and even sent obscene videos of her to her father.

 The accused initially filed for anticipatory bail, but it was rejected by the Special Judge, POSCO, Ranchi on 18th February 2021. Subsequently, the accused surrendered on 3rd April 2021 and applied for bail. The single judge of the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the application for bail based on the reasoning that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the informant. The judge also noted that the case seemed to have been filed primarily due to the petitioner’s refusal to solemnize the marriage, as reflected in the statement under  Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the allegations made in the FIR.

Issues involved in the Case

Whether the High Court was right in allowing the bail?

Contention of Parties 

Petitioner 

Senior Counsel Mr Anand Grover provided evidence of the victim’s age at the time of the alleged offense, stating that she was approximately 13 years old. He argued that this made the accused liable for punishment under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POSCO Act. Mr Grover also contended that the High Court’s reasons for granting bail were superficially plausible but ultimately incorrect, and therefore the bail should not have been allowed.

Respondent 

Counsel for the second respondent, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, placed reliance on the prosecutrix’s statement, which was recorded under section 164 of CrPC. He contended that despite the charge sheet being submitted, the alleged obscene videos have not been recovered, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the second respondent engaged in sexual contact with the appellant.

Judgement 

On 21 February 2022, the Supreme Court of India issued an order overturning the disputed decision of the High Court of Jharkhand, which was dated 2/3 August 2021. The Supreme Court directed the second respondent to immediately surrender to custody. Additionally, the court requested the Special Judge, POSCO, who was presiding over the trial, to complete the proceedings within six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the Supreme Court’s order. 

The court deemed the bail granted by the High Court to be wrong. The High Court’s reasoning, which stated that there was a love affair between the appellant and the second respondent, and that the case was filed solely due to the second respondent’s refusal to marry, was deemed to be highly questionable. The court further stated that it is evident on the face of it that the appellant was only 13 years old at the time of the alleged offense. Therefore, both the aforementioned grounds provided by the High Court hold no relevance in granting bail. Considering the appellant’s age and the severity of the crime, bail should not have been granted.

Conclusion

The two-judge bench disposed of the appeal and overturned the order of the Jharkhand high court. The court has the discretion to grant bail for a non-bailable offense, taking into consideration the severity of the crime committed. In this particular case, the appellant’s age of approximately 13 years and the nature of the alleged offense were deemed extremely heinous. As a result, the court determined that bail was not appropriate and directed the defendant to surrender, while also instructing the special judge to complete the proceedings within six months to ensure swift justice for this horrendous offense. This case exemplifies the fact that it is imperative to exercise caution and reason when considering the granting of bail in instances involving severe criminal offenses.

References 

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/28314/28314_2021_34_25_33539_Order_21-Feb-2022.pdf

https://casesummary.lawfaculty.in/ms-x-v-the-state-of-jharkhand-and-another/

The case analysis is written by Harsha Shekhawat , a student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida , 1^st Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin