| Citation | Criminal Appeal No(S). 2207 of 2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3433 of 2023 |
| Date of Judgment | 31st July 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal arising out of special leave petition |
| Appellant | Md. Asfak Alam |
| Respondent | State of Jharkhand & Anr |
| Bench | Hon’ble justice S. Ravindra Bhat |
| Referred | Section 498A, 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The heart of this case revolves around the appellant’s distress over being denied anticipatory bail and instead being directed to surrender before the court and apply for regular bail. The appellant and the second respondent, a married couple, tied the knot on 5th November 2020. Unfortunately, the appellant claims that their marital bliss was short-lived as the respondent-wife became dissatisfied, and her father interfered in their lives, putting pressure on the appellant and his family. This situation escalated, leading to the appellant filing complaints against the wife’s family for allegedly threatening his own family.
Trouble came to a head on 2nd April 2022 when an FIR was lodged against the appellant, his brother, and others at the concerned Police Station. The allegations included offenses under Sections 498A, 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Fearing arrest, the appellant took proactive measures and applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Sessions Judge in Gumla, Jharkhand. However, his hopes were dashed as the application was rejected on 28th June 2022. Not giving up, the appellant persisted in seeking justice and approached the Jharkhand High Court on 5th July 2022, seeking anticipatory bail. Throughout this ordeal, the appellant fully cooperated with the investigation, and upon its completion, a charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Judge.
The Sessions Court took cognizance of the case on 1st October 2022, marking a significant step in the legal proceedings.
On 08.08.2022, the High Court protected the appellant with an interim order directing that he may not be arrested. However, on the next hearing on 18.01.2023, the High Court rejected the pending anticipatory bail and directed the appellant to surrender before the competent Court and seek regular bail.
The relevant extracts of the High Court impugned order read as follows:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the learned counsel, I found that there are serious allegations against the petitioner that the informant is also being subjected to cruelty by lodging criminal cases against the family members just after institution of this case.
Considering the rival submission of learned counsels and materials available against petitioner as well as gravity of allegations, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.”
ISSUES
The issues in the case revolve around the grant of anticipatory bail and the discretion of the court in exercising its powers in such matters.
Whether the High Court orders stands justified of rejecting anticipatory bail?
ARGUMENTS
The core contention in this case lies in the appellant’s argument, which centers on the paramount importance of personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. They assert that arrests should only be made in specific circumstances, particularly when custodial investigation or interrogation of the accused is crucial. This necessity arises especially in cases involving serious offenses where there is a genuine concern that the accused might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The counsel representing the appellant emphasizes that while the power to arrest is indeed available, it should not be wielded indiscriminately. Each case warrants careful consideration, and the justification for arrest must be independently assessed based on its merits and the nature of the alleged offense.
To bolster their stance, the appellant’s counsel cites various legal precedents, such as the cases of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. These cases serve as exemplars, highlighting the significance of adhering to procedural requirements, particularly as outlined in Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The essence of this section necessitates the investigating authorities to exercise their power to arrest only when there is a substantial apprehension of the accused absconding or disregarding legal summons.
In essence, the appellant contends that personal liberty is a foundational right protected by the Constitution and should not be easily curtailed. Arrests should be approached with caution and prudence, and the investigating officers must diligently follow the prescribed procedures before taking such a drastic step.
On the flip side, the State’s counsel argues that being charged with a crime doesn’t automatically grant the accused anticipatory bail. The court can use its discretion to consider whether the accused’s actions in the past suggest a potential to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. In this specific case, the respondent alleges that she experienced constant harassment from the appellant and his relatives at her matrimonial home soon after getting married. Additionally, she claims to have received life-threatening threats, including the possibility of being injected to make it look like a heart attack caused her death.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court of India has placed a strong emphasis on safeguarding personal freedom when exercising the discretion to grant bail. Over a series of verdicts, the court has established a general tenet that bail should generally be granted. However, when dealing with serious offenses outlined in Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which involve offenses carrying significant penalties or are considered special in nature, the court exercises prudence and thoughtful consideration before allowing bail.
When contemplating whether to grant bail or anticipatory bail, the court takes into account several pivotal factors. These factors encompass the nature and severity of the offense, the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence or interfere with the trial process by influencing witnesses, and the likelihood of the accused attempting to evade justice by absconding. These aspects serve as guiding markers for the court’s decision-making process.
Throughout the trial, the court maintains control over the proceedings and possesses the authority to impose conditions on the accused to ensure their presence and active involvement in the trial. The court adheres to these fundamental principles in all instances where the matter of bail is brought into question.
In the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), a noteworthy legal precedent was established. A five-judge Bench reviewed past judgments, including the one in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, in order to ascertain whether imposing restrictions on pre-arrest bail orders, particularly after the filing of a charge-sheet, was warranted. The court determined that while conditions could be applied to pre-arrest bail, this should not be an absolute rule. The standard practice should be to refrain from constraining the duration of a pre-arrest bail order, unless specific circumstances necessitate such action.
Regarding the specific case under consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no extraordinary aspects or conditions that would disqualify the appellant from being granted anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that the crucial focus should not be solely on the early deterioration of the matrimonial relationship, but rather on the accuracy of the allegations against the appellant.
In the course of the legal proceedings, the court identified two distinct time frames. The initial period spanned from April 2022 to August 8, 2022, during which no protection was extended via an interim order. The subsequent period commenced on August 8, 2022, when the High Court directed the police not to apprehend the appellant during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application. Notably, the investigation concluded and charges were formally filed after August 8, 2022. Despite the absence of any impediments from the side of the accused, the High Court denied bail and instructed the appellant to surrender and subsequently seek bail from the Trial Court.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court deemed the approach taken by the High Court to be casual and unsuitable. As a consequence, the order rejecting bail and instructing the appellant to surrender and later seek bail was nullified. The case underscores the significance of upholding personal liberty and ensuring a balanced approach to granting bail, all while giving due regard to the particularities of each case.
REFERENCES
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=16640
This article is Written by B S BADRINATH, of university law college, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
