important points
It is not imperative that all the accused persons must be named in the FIR.
The prosecutrix may be a girl of easy virtues, but the same by itself may not be a relevant consideration for granting anticipatory bail.
When regular bail is rejected to co-accused on the same materials, other accused cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR is not an encyclopedia – It is not imperative that all the accused persons must be named in the FIR. (Paras 17 and 23)
       2007 (3) SCALE 241 – Relied upon.
       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Trite that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court must record the reasons therefor. (Para 21)
       (c)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 (Maharashtra amendment) – The prosecutrix may be a girl of easy virtues, but the same by itself may not be a relevant consideration for granting anticipatory bail. (Para 22)
       (2005) 3 SCC 594 – Relied upon.
       (d)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in offence u/s 376, 376(2)(g) IPC are required to be satisfied – Prosecution giving detailed account of occurrence corroborated by other witnesses – Hence, evidence of prosecutrix could not be rejected outrightly at this stage. (Paras 23 and 24)
       (2007) 4 SCC 434 – Relied upon.
       (e)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – High Court rejecting regular bail to co-accused, against whom charge sheet had been filed, on the same materials – There is no reason why and on what basis anticipatory bail should be granted to the respondents – Impugned judgment granting anticipatory bail to respondents not sustainable. (Paras 28 and 29)
       (2005) 8 SCC 21 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       1.The prosecutrix, a minor, after being abused by the guardian left her home and came to Aurangabad. There she was employed by the accused no. 1 who pushed her to flesh trade.
       2.The respondents while taking the prosecutrix to Bombay by bus started behaving indecently with her whereupon Police intervened and took all of them to police station.
       3.FIR was lodged and the prosecutrix named the respondents in her deposition u/s 164, Cr. P.C.
       4.Anticipatory bail application of the respondents was rejected by the Sessions Court. High Court, however, allowed the same. Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment.
       Findings of the Court :
       High Court ought not grant anticipatory bail to respondents.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad granting anticipatory bail to the respondents herein for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 376, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act.

3.Respondents herein comprise of police officers, politicians and a businessman.

4.A First Information Report was lodged by a girl, who is said to be minor, showing how she was driven to the flash trade by accused Shamim Tabassum.

5.One Maruti Chandre had seven sisters, two of them are Mahananda and Sunita. Mahananda was unmarried. Sunitas first husband was Dilip Deshmukh, who died. She married to Sahebrao Mhaske, who also died leaving behind prosecutrix and one Santosh. After the death of Sahebrao Mhaske, she again married to Vasantrao Hudgir. There are two issues from the said marriage. Mahananda allegedly was taking care of the prosecutrix as well as Santosh. Before us some documents have been placed to show that the date of birth of Puja is 28.06.1991.

Once she had left her house at Parbhani having been abused and assaulted by Mahananda; but returned after some time. However, after her return to Parbhani, she was again abused and assaulted by her cousin. She again came back to Aurangabad and started residing at Mukundwadi, where she met accused Tabassum @ Baji. She was asked to work at her place as a maid-servant. According to Puja, in Tabassums house some girls used to come. After a few days, as one girl did not come, she was asked to go with her. They reached a Dhaba at Mhaismal in a white coloured vehicle, where they found a person sitting. She was offered a soft drink. Having consumed it, she felt reeling in her head. She was also not able to walk. Allegedly, against her will , she was subjected to rape. She was taken back to the house by accused Tabassum. She thereafter allegedly had regularly been sent out with various persons. Sometimes, the amount she received was to be divided in the ratio of 50 : 50. Sometimes Tabassum herself used to keep the amount with her. She purchased clothing, jewelleries etc. from the amount she used to earn. Respondents herein, according to the girl, had taken her to a hotel, government guest house and even on one occasion to their own apartment. On 22.04.2007, the accused persons, named in the First Information Report, came to the house of Accused No. 1 for taking her to Mumbai. They were to travel in a bus. They, however, went to a hotel to take liquor, before boarding the bus. However, when the accused persons started behaving indecently with her, the police came and took all of them to the police station.

She was medically examined on 22.04.2007. Her Radiological (Bone) Assessment suggested her age to be between 14-16 years. Respondents herein were not named in the First Information Report. However, Puja made several statements thereafter implicating the respondents herein.

She also gave her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).

Respondents, having come to know that they have been named by the said girl, absconded. They filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The same was dismissed by an order dated 24.05.2007.

6.Respondents moved the High Court thereagainst and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2007, the said application for anticipatory bail was allowed, inter alia, holding that the prosecutrix being major and having willingly consented for sex for consideration, prima facie, a case under Section 376 IPC has not been made out.

It was furthermore held that she being stationed in the Remand Home at Aurangabad, was fully protected and, thus, the question of the respondents being in a position to influence her, does not arise.

7.The State is, thus, before us.

8.Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1310

Cases Referred (5)