1. Appeal against High Court order granting bail for offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and various sections of the POCSO Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1335
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Crl. A. No.1309 of 2018
Decided On : 29-10-2018
Important Points
The High Court's adjudication of the bail application violated settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence and statutory prescriptions, including the conversion of the bail matter into a mini-trial and the disclosure of the victim's identity.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Application
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.439
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.376(2)(f), S.228(a)
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT: S.4, S.5(c)(f)(m), S.6, S.8, S.9(c)(f)(m), S.10, S.23
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.376(2)(f), S.228(a)
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT: S.4, S.5(c)(f)(m), S.6, S.8, S.9(c)(f)(m), S.10, S.23
Headnote
Bail Application - Violation of Criminal Law Principles - IPC 1860, POCSO Act 2012
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the High Court's order granting bail to the accused who was charged under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4, 5(c)(f)(m), 6, 8, 9(c)(f)(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act. The High Court had also ordered scientific tests for the accused and the victim's family and disclosed the victim's identity.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's approach in considering the bail application was in violation of criminal law principles and statutory requirements. It disapproved of the High Court's conversion of the bail matter into a mini-trial and its disclosure of the victim's identity.
Issues: Violation of Criminal Law Principles, Disclosure of Victim's Identity, Lethargic Attitude of the State
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's order was quashed due to its violation of settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence and statutory prescriptions, including the conversion of the bail application into a mini-trial and the disclosure of the victim's identity. The Supreme Court also criticized the State's lethargic attitude in not filing an appeal despite the violations.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleges violation of criminal jurisprudence via ordered scientific tests and disclosure of victim's identity; Respondent seeks non-interference as bail was already granted. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. High Court improperly converted bail adjudication into a mini-trial by ordering scientific tests and violated statutory mandates by disclosing the victim's identity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Bail adjudication under Section 439 CrPC requires only a prima facie assessment and must strictly adhere to statutory prohibitions against disclosing sexual offence victims' identities. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court bail order set aside and quashed; trial court directed to expedite proceedings. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
6. What is the permissible scope of a court's examination when adjudicating a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC?
The court must only determine if a prima facie case exists, considering factors like crime gravity, evidence character, and flight risk. It must not undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or order specific scientific tests, as this improperly converts the bail hearing into a mini-trial. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What are the legal restrictions regarding the disclosure of a victim's identity in sexual offence cases?
Section 228A of the IPC and Sections 23 and 33(7) of the POCSO Act prohibit disclosing the identity of victims. To prevent social victimization and protect privacy, courts should not indicate the victim's name in judgments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
8. Can a court order scientific tests like narco-analysis or brain mapping to decide a bail application?
No. Ordering such tests and relying on their reports during a bail hearing contravenes the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence and constitutes an improper assumption of the functions of a trial court. (Para 7 , 8 )
ORDER :
Leave Granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.5391 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for the offences under Sections 4 , 5(c)(f)(m), 6, 8, 9(c)(f)(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by which the High Court granted bail to the accused (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 2”).
3. It is not required to go into the details of the instant case. However, we find it pertinent to mention brief facts, which are as follows. On 16.09.2017, an FIR, C.R No. 113/17 was lodged at Shahpur Police Station, Ahmadabad City against respondent no. 2, under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 4 , 5(c)(f)(m), 6, 8, 9(c)(f)(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act, by the Appellant, who is grandmother of the “victim”. The victim herein is a minor, aged around 7 years.
4. Respondent No. 2 was apprehended thereafter and Charge-Sheet was filed on 05.12.2017 for the offence mentioned in the FIR. Therein, respondent no. 2 approached the High Court for bail and the same was granted.
5. The Ld. counsel for the appellant as well as the State have brought to our notice that the present order of the High Court is in clear violation of the settled principles of criminal law jurisprudence and statutory prescriptions. It was also contended that, while considering the bail application, the High Court traversed the settled principles of law. The Ld. Counsel for appellant has brought to our notice that the High Court directed accused-respondent no. 2 as well as the appellant, who is grandmother of the victim along with parents of the victim to undergo scientific tests viz., lie detector, brain mapping and Narco-Analysis. After receiving the reports of the same, it examined the same before enlarging respondent no. 2 on bail vide impugned order dated 27.04.2018. Further, it is also brought to our notice that the Ld. Judge has throughout the course of his order disclosed the identity of the “victim”.
6. Counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the respondent has already been enlarged on bail by the High Court, and thus, seeks non-interference by this Court.
7. Having heard the counsels for the parties, it is surprising to note the present approach adopted by the High Court while considering the bail application. The High Court ordering the abovementioned tests is not only in contravention to the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence but also violates statutory requirements. While adjudicating a bail application, S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the guiding principle wherein Court takes into consideration, inter alia, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual matrix, and therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. However, the court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police, or rather order specific tests as done in the present case.
8. In the instant case, by ordering the abovementioned tests and venturing into the reports of the same with meticulous details, the High Court has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini-trial indeed. This assumption of function of a trial court by the High Court is deprecated.
9. Apart from the above, the High Court stands in clear violation of the precedents of this Hon’ble Court and statutory prescriptions, by disclosing the na
